They hire people who know that maths doesn't "top out here", so they can point to them and say "look at that mathematicians/physicists/engineers/PHD's we employ - your $20Bn is safe here". Hedge funds aren't run by idiots, just a different kind of "smart" to an engineer.
The engineers are are incredibly smart people, and so the bots are "incredibly smart" but "finance" is criticised by "true academics" because finance is where brains go to die.
To use popular science "the three body problem" is much harder than "arb trade $10M profitably for a nice life in NYC", you just get paid less for solving the former.
It's like math v engineering - you can come up with some beautiful pde theory to describe this column in a building will bend under dynamic load and use it to figure out exactly the proportions.
But engineering is about figuring out "just make its ratio of width to height greater than x"
Because the goal is different - it's not about coming up with the most pleasing description or finding the most accurate model of something. It's about making stuff in the real world in a practical, reliable way.
The three body problem is also harder than running experiments in the LHC or analysing Hubble data or treating sick kids or building roads or running a business.
Anybody who says that finance is where brains go to die might do well to look in the mirror at their own brain. There are difficult challenges for smart people in basically every industry - anybody suggesting that people not working in academia are in some way stupider should probably reconsider the quality of their own brain.
There are many many reasons to dislike finance. That it is somehow pedestrian or for the less clever people is not true.
Nobody who espouses the points you've made has ever put their money where there mouth is. Why not start a firm, making a billion dollars a year because you're so smart and fund fusion research with it? Because it's obviously way more difficult than they make out.
> The three body problem is also harder than running experiments in the LHC or analysing Hubble data or treating sick kids or building roads or running a business
Not that it's particularly relevant to this discussion but the three body problem is easy. You can solve it numerically on a laptop with insane precision (much more precisely than would be useful for anything) or also write down an analytic solution (which is ugly and useless because it converge s extremely slowly, but still. See wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem).
> Unlike the two-body problem, the three-body problem has no general closed-form solution,[1] and it is impossible to write a standard equation that gives the exact movements of three bodies orbiting each other in space.
The crucial parts of that are "closed-form" and "standard". The analytic solution is "non-standard" because it involves the kind of power series that nobody knows or cares about (because they are only about 100 years old and have no real useful applications in engineering).
A similar claim is that roots of polynomials of degree 5 (and over) have no "general closed form solution" (with, as usual, the implicit qualification: "in terms of functions I'm currently comfortable with because I've seen them a lot"). That doesn't mean it's a difficult problem.
The two problems have in common that they are significantly harder than their smaller versions (two bodies, or degree 4). Historically, people spent a lot of time trying to find solutions for the larger problems in terms of the same functions that can be used to solve the smaller problems (conic sections, radicals). That turned out to not be possible. This is the historical origin of the meme "three body problem is unsolvable".
Ill probably go look this up, but do you mean functions of a higher type than normal powers like eg. Tetration, or something more complicated (am I even on the right track?)
I mean functions defined by power series (just like sin(x) is defined in analysis courses). For the three body problem, see http://oro.open.ac.uk/22440/2/Sundman_final.pdf (Warning, pdf!). This is what Wikipedia cites when talking about the solution to the three body problem. The document gives a lout of historical context.
For polynomial roots, see wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_function.
> ... suggesting that people not working in academia are in some way stupider ...
My interpretation of "finance is where brains go to die" is more along the lines of finance being less good for society at large compared to pure science. Like if someone invents something new and useful in a lab for their phd, then they go find a job in finance. The brain died because it was onto something and then abandoned it for being a cog in the machine.
I was specifically addressing the "being smart isn't necessary for trading".
The op is making some implication across numerous posts that it's all basically a big con and it's all very simple.
It is like claiming you don't need to be rocket scientist to go to the moon because they just use metal and screws.
The individual parts might be simple in isolation. But it is the complexity of conducting large scale, large scope research in an environment that gives you limited feedback and will adapt to your own behaviour changes that is where the smarts are needed.
OP seems to not understand the inherent difficult of doing any research.
Almost anybody could be taught to make a simple circuit and battery from some basic raw materials.
The fact it is simple and easy now we know the answer does not mean it was simple or easy to discover. Some of the greatest minds dedicated their entire lives to discovering things that now most 10 years olds understand. That doesn't imply you only need to have the intellect of a 10 year old to make fundamental breakthroughs in science.
Working in quant trading is almost pure research - and so it requires a certain level of intellect - probably at least the intellect required to pursue a quantitative PhD successfully (not that they need the PhD but they need the capacity to be able to do one).
You misunderstand the quote. It’s where brains go to die from a societal perspective. It might be stimulating and difficult for the individual but it’s useless to science.
The engineers are are incredibly smart people, and so the bots are "incredibly smart" but "finance" is criticised by "true academics" because finance is where brains go to die.
To use popular science "the three body problem" is much harder than "arb trade $10M profitably for a nice life in NYC", you just get paid less for solving the former.