Markets are efficient if and only if P = NP (2010)
Have another account here but don&#x27;t want to take the karma hit for being a crank.  I published this 2-page proof that the EMH is false:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;1011.0423" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;1011.0423</a><p>(didn&#x27;t set the date so in the document it&#x27;s wrong, this was published 2010.)<p>It doesn&#x27;t depend on P = NP, it&#x27;s simply a rigorous proof that EMH is false.<p>Let&#x27;s switch gears a second.  Here&#x27;s a famous elementary proof[1] that there are infinite primes.  Suppose there are just finite primes, up to some largest.  Multiply them together and add one.  No prime divides the new number (because &quot;every&quot; prime leaves a remainder 1), so you&#x27;ve just produced a new prime.  This new prime is larger than the largest prime in your finite set because you multiplied that by the rest of them and added one to get it.  So this is a contradiction, you couldn&#x27;t have had finite primes up to some largest.<p>Anyway if you think there might be a largest prime after what you just read, it just means you don&#x27;t understand the proof.  If you believe EMH might be true it just means you don&#x27;t understand the proof that it is false.<p>Of course, nobody ever even hypothesized that academia was efficient :)<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Euclid's_theorem#Euclid&#x27;s_proof" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Euclid's_theorem#Euclid&#x27;s_pr...</a><p>--<p>EDIT: no mistake in my comment