Comment on “Nonlinear Monetary Dynamics” by DeCoster and Mitchell
对 DeCoster 与 Mitchell《非线性货币动态》的评论AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要围绕货币总量 Divisia M2 的非线性动态与维数估计展开,直接涉及宏观时间序列分析。
对 DeCoster 与 Mitchell《非线性货币动态》的评论AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
The concept of dimension, its uses, and the difficulties in estimation are not universally well understood. A recent article in the Journal of Business & Economic Statistics by DeCoster and Mitchell (1991) (DM) illustrates our claim. Dimension calculations are useful for characterizing the topological properties of the data. The nonexistence of a lowdimensional attracting set, however, implies nothing about the presence of complicated dynamics. For succinct reference to these ideas, see Ramsey, Sayers, and Rothman (1990). The purpose of this comment is twofold. First, we wish to remind the reader of two practical difficulties in estimating the Grassberger and Procaccia (GP) dimension concept. Second, using an alternative procedure that mitigates many of the problems that stem from small sample sizes, we reestimate DM's strongest result and show that the finding of nonlinearity in Divisia M2 (see p. 460 of DM) cannot be sustained by the dimension calculations cited. The interested reader can find a more complete discussion of these and related issues in the article by Ramsey and Rothman (1992) and the references cited therein.