**From:** Ian Wright (*wrighti@ACM.ORG*)

**Date:** Wed Jul 18 2007 - 17:02:16 EDT

**Next message:**Paul Cockshott: "Re: [OPE-L] a paper on Marx's transformation problem and Ricardo's problem of an invariable measure of value"**Previous message:**Jurriaan Bendien: "[OPE-L] Cajo Brendel"**In reply to:**Paul Cockshott: "Re: [OPE-L] a paper on Marx's transformation problem and Ricardo's problem of an invariable measure of value"**Next in thread:**Paul Cockshott: "Re: [OPE-L] a paper on Marx's transformation problem and Ricardo's problem of an invariable measure of value"**Reply:**Paul Cockshott: "Re: [OPE-L] a paper on Marx's transformation problem and Ricardo's problem of an invariable measure of value"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

> I am describing an alternative, and what seems quite straight forward > interpretation of the series representation. This is the way I have > always understood the standard dated labour interpretation. There is not just one dated labour interpretation (I have already mentioned two). Are there any references in the literature to your finite interpretation? It seems hard to imagine given that the series representation is infinite. > If you formulate the series representation as an infinite series it is > obviously wrong as an economic argument, since no actual process can > involve infinities - this was established long ago by Aristotle Of course no economic process starts from nothing and takes an infinite number of steps. That's obvious, which is why I state that the process of replacement is "hypothetical" (a point you previously objected to). But note that standard labour-values by definition are equal to an infinite series. There is no choice in the matter. Do these infinites imply absurdity? Not at all. For example, the electrostatic potential energy of a charged particle is defined as the work that must be done to move it from an infinite distance away to its present location. This is a way of understanding potential energy. It does not imply that the particle was actually moved through an infinite distance. Labour-values and potential energy are very similar in this respect: both are instantaneous properties of "objects" in a "field" that have mathematical representations in terms of infinite series. Or should we reject the physicists interpretation of potential energy too? > processes see the paper > http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/tcsa.pdf joint paper with Greg > Michaelson and Lewis Mackenzie, > and > http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/cantor.pdf ( Cantor > diagonalisation and planning), by Greg Michaelson, Allin Cottrell and me > attacking the use of infintistic arguments by the Austrian school of > economists. > > Any real economic process must have variables that are integers and > coefficients that are rationals, and the resulting time series have a > finite horizon. > You use the standard formula for labour-values in your own empirical work. So you are already using quantities that are the sum of an infinite series of terms, whether you like it or not. These rather straightforward labour-cost accounting issues can be resolved without introducing the red-herring of constructive vs. non-constructive mathematics.

**Next message:**Paul Cockshott: "Re: [OPE-L] a paper on Marx's transformation problem and Ricardo's problem of an invariable measure of value"**Previous message:**Jurriaan Bendien: "[OPE-L] Cajo Brendel"**In reply to:**Paul Cockshott: "Re: [OPE-L] a paper on Marx's transformation problem and Ricardo's problem of an invariable measure of value"**Next in thread:**Paul Cockshott: "Re: [OPE-L] a paper on Marx's transformation problem and Ricardo's problem of an invariable measure of value"**Reply:**Paul Cockshott: "Re: [OPE-L] a paper on Marx's transformation problem and Ricardo's problem of an invariable measure of value"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Tue Jul 31 2007 - 00:00:06 EDT
*