i.e. E[log(X)], E[log(Y)] < E[log(Z)] does not imply that E[log((X+Y)/2)] < E[log(Z)]
Let me see if I can turn this into a proof either way
Conversation
OK so I think:
1) is wrong given his assumptions
2) if you *also* assume that there aren't two pots which have coins with *exactly* the same growth rate, is right given his assumptions
3) his assumptions are stupid
4) given good assumptions, he's wrong
2
3
If there are two pots with the same growth rate, and you can’t rebalance between them, you think you can beat the growth rate?
3
yup! (Assuming those coins are uncorrelated with each other.)
1
1
er ok another question about your assumptions: are you assuming that the pots can look at each other's performance (but not spend $ they don't have), or not?
1
Nope, you’re allowed to have a single planner who can see everything
1
meh ok I'll see if I can play around with this but not sure I'm right on it
it's an edge case anyway though :P
What I like about this example (in addition to the fact that it got all of you to confidently proclaim I was wrong on the math 🤣) is that it shows the difference between caring about EV(utility(total wealth at next timestep)) and caring about compounding growth
2