A response to Paul C's ope-l 3246.
He writes that "if the theorem is a theory about economies, and [if] it is
non-vacuous it must make some testable predictions. If it does not, then it
must be a
theorem of a some specialised branch of mathematics."
By this criterion, not only the Okishio theorem, but the proof of the
existence of general equilibrium, Arrow's impossibility theorem, and indeed
any conclusions (which other people would consider as economic) that are
arrived at by deductive reasoning from premises are either vacuous or part of
a specialized branch of mathematics.
Now that I understand Paul's terms, I can answer his question about why I
(anyone?) should be concerned with the Okishio theorem if it is a mathematical
proposition: because I'm working in the same specialized branch of
mathematics.
Andrew Kliman