6 ms·

Ok if youre going stick with this its fine - its clear, that you use mathematical expressions to allude to things, not to define them. And that you find it not

Ok if youre going stick with this its fine - its clear, that you use mathematical expressions to allude to things, not to define them. And that you find it not uncommon or inconsistent to base observations on clearly insufficient mathematical expressions, appealing to ambiguity in your math to carry such technique.

Chris2048 10y ago
Yes, you brought it up. > mathematical expressions to allude to things I spelled out the things I wanted to explicitly. > clearly insufficient mathematical expressions I don't think that's the case. I think you're inventing a problem. > appealing to ambiguity in your math to carry such technique. "carry", "appeal"? Again, the aim is not to provide a full economic model. If some parts are general (not merely ambiguous) and other parts specific, it is not because I am missing specificity in the general parts, but because those parts are not my focus. If you are going to throw around "insufficient" you'll have to define: insufficient for what?
- strainer 10y ago
  This... Assume dSal_dt = proportion * f(avg_lab_demand - avg_lab_supply) ...really is insufficient to conclude this: "Now, if you keep topping up supply from overseas, salary never increases as much as it might, as such it is limited - as such, salary rate increase is also capped; and it's not employees ... " It was just used as a gesture regardless of its actual mathematical meaning. "Assume" could honestly have been replaced with: "Resolve a general sense of this iffy expression which supports the following claims:" Math is not meant to be treated as an ambiguous medium, it is intended to explicate analogies and to manipulate them accurately. I understand you feel that is unreasonable, but it is what math is developed in order to be capable of and what it is used properly for. good speed with it.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    No it isn't, it demonstrates that exact relationship. > I understand you feel that is unreasonable You misunderstand, I don't agree with you; I'm not commenting on "the proper use of math" because I disagree with some of your base accusations. I believe you are just passive-aggressively badgering me over nothing.
    - strainer 10y ago
      "it demonstrates that exact relationship." It doesnt "demonstrate" ANY exact relationship, because you put an anonymous function in it! All it really demonstrated is you were considering salary as preposterously simple function of labour supply with no other parameters. You basically just wont be told that your math was very blatantly bad, resorting to accustations of unreasonable complaint and now passive aggressive badgering. How many careful replies have i composed to try and gently explain to you that you should check your use of math? If you dont wish to feel "badgered" just get it and/or quit replying.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > considering salary as preposterously simple function of labor supply with no other parameters. Or it's not a complete model of the many possible parameters relevant in the economy. "preposterously simple" needs qualification on why it is ""preposterous" given IT IS NOT A COMPLETE ECONOMIC MODEL. > It doesn't "demonstrate" ANY exact relationship It demonstrates the rate of salary proportional to some function of the difference in supply and demand. If there are multiple factors involved in determining a value, I can still represent the nature of the relationship a single factor has with that value. It's "that-exact relationship", not "that exact-relationship". I won't be told, because you're wrong. I don't "feel" badgered, I am badgered.
        strainer 10y ago
        "Or it's not a complete model of the many possible parameters relevant in the economy. " Your formula contained TWO terms, salary and labour scarcity. That was the entire economic model which was to be "assumed" "Ladies and gentlemen assume salary is a simple function of labour scarcity. Now, these ideas follow..." "What are you complaining about? How unreasonable. I dont like these replies. Stop badgering me!" Stop complaining. I dont have to be the bigger man and stop replying. Now theres an opportunity.
        Chris2048 10y ago

Chris2048 10y ago

Yes, you brought it up. > mathematical expressions to allude to things I spelled out the things I wanted to explicitly. > clearly insufficient mathematical expressions I don't think that's the case. I think you're inventing a problem. > appealing to ambiguity in your math to carry such technique. "carry", "appeal"? Again, the aim is not to provide a full economic model. If some parts are general (not merely ambiguous) and other parts specific, it is not because I am missing specificity in the general parts, but because those parts are not my focus. If you are going to throw around "insufficient" you'll have to define: insufficient for what?

strainer 10y ago
This... Assume dSal_dt = proportion * f(avg_lab_demand - avg_lab_supply) ...really is insufficient to conclude this: "Now, if you keep topping up supply from overseas, salary never increases as much as it might, as such it is limited - as such, salary rate increase is also capped; and it's not employees ... " It was just used as a gesture regardless of its actual mathematical meaning. "Assume" could honestly have been replaced with: "Resolve a general sense of this iffy expression which supports the following claims:" Math is not meant to be treated as an ambiguous medium, it is intended to explicate analogies and to manipulate them accurately. I understand you feel that is unreasonable, but it is what math is developed in order to be capable of and what it is used properly for. good speed with it.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  No it isn't, it demonstrates that exact relationship. > I understand you feel that is unreasonable You misunderstand, I don't agree with you; I'm not commenting on "the proper use of math" because I disagree with some of your base accusations. I believe you are just passive-aggressively badgering me over nothing.
  - strainer 10y ago
    "it demonstrates that exact relationship." It doesnt "demonstrate" ANY exact relationship, because you put an anonymous function in it! All it really demonstrated is you were considering salary as preposterously simple function of labour supply with no other parameters. You basically just wont be told that your math was very blatantly bad, resorting to accustations of unreasonable complaint and now passive aggressive badgering. How many careful replies have i composed to try and gently explain to you that you should check your use of math? If you dont wish to feel "badgered" just get it and/or quit replying.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > considering salary as preposterously simple function of labor supply with no other parameters. Or it's not a complete model of the many possible parameters relevant in the economy. "preposterously simple" needs qualification on why it is ""preposterous" given IT IS NOT A COMPLETE ECONOMIC MODEL. > It doesn't "demonstrate" ANY exact relationship It demonstrates the rate of salary proportional to some function of the difference in supply and demand. If there are multiple factors involved in determining a value, I can still represent the nature of the relationship a single factor has with that value. It's "that-exact relationship", not "that exact-relationship". I won't be told, because you're wrong. I don't "feel" badgered, I am badgered.
      - strainer 10y ago
        "Or it's not a complete model of the many possible parameters relevant in the economy. " Your formula contained TWO terms, salary and labour scarcity. That was the entire economic model which was to be "assumed" "Ladies and gentlemen assume salary is a simple function of labour scarcity. Now, these ideas follow..." "What are you complaining about? How unreasonable. I dont like these replies. Stop badgering me!" Stop complaining. I dont have to be the bigger man and stop replying. Now theres an opportunity.
        Chris2048 10y ago