You have a technical mind, don't you? - page 13
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Build a two-dimensional ABC triangle in your garage out of any material, you can.
You will of course have no difficulty showing me where I claimed that.
The price at this point is often like a bomb always hitting the epicentre of its explosion) That is - there is usually no way (data) to construct these curves, but they are believed in anyway.
His main mistake is to try to get all people on the same page. For example, Neumann's theory of utility assumes individual differences.
Why "no possibility of constructing curves" ? No special precision or large ranges are needed there - it is enough to construct a curve at the prices that have actually been fixed. And if the law didn't work somewhere, micro-economics textbooks would have pointed that out clearly.
And about "one-size-fits-all" - well, let's say, the laws of conservation are also "one-size-fits-all" for some reason. Although, there is no logical proof of it - just repeatedly verified facts. What if in some conditions they do not work? But, nevertheless, this does not prevent them from being used everywhere.
And individual differences do not change anything here, people are indeed different, accordingly their pyramids of needs may be different. Not to mention the fact that the boundaries between groups of needs are not clear-cut either. But I don't see where there is any contradiction with Maslow's theses. A concrete hungry person may not think about how to satisfy hunger, but how to gain new knowledge, but, nevertheless, this condition will not last long, and he will think longer about how to satisfy hunger.
You will of course have no difficulty showing where I claimed that.
Why "no capacity to construct curves" ? You don't need much accuracy or large ranges there - all you need is to plot the curve at the prices that have actually been recorded. And if that law didn't work somewhere, microeconomics textbooks would clearly point that out.
And about "one-size-fits-all" - well, let's say, the laws of conservation are also "one-size-fits-all" for some reason. Although, there is no logical proof of it - just repeatedly verified facts. What if in some conditions they do not work? But, nevertheless - this does not prevent them from being used everywhere.
And individual differences do not change anything here, people are indeed different, consequently, their pyramids of needs may be different. Not to mention the fact that the boundaries between groups of needs are not clear-cut either. But I don't see where there is any contradiction with Maslow's theses. A specific hungry person may not think about how to satisfy hunger, but how to gain new knowledge, but, nevertheless, this condition will not last long, and he will think longer about how to satisfy hunger.
In economics, there is an important assumption about "other things being equal". It is never exactly fulfilled. You can never say how accurately it holds for your prices - it's entirely possible that each such price is obtained by intersecting curves of completely different shapes (not just shifted). Textbooks usually give abstract curves, not real curves.
The fact that a person deals with natural needs (eating, sleeping, etc.) like Socrates does not mean that he is also inclined to engage in philosophy.
Whether the programmer considers the scientist's assertion about the wormhole in the subgenre to be wrong or not. And whether the programmer relies on the authority of the scientist, where one does not have to check everything he says, but accepts it as unquestionable truth.
In quantum physics, there is the concept of the tunnel effect. This is exactly what it's about. A wave function can have a high probability density function on either side of a potential barrier, which theoretically cannot be overcome. The problem of theory is not to explain it, but to apply a mathematical apparatus. And we can all draw pretty pictures for housewives.
A model describing a real object must either reflect or not violate the properties of the real. One of the properties of the real is that it is volumetric. If a two-dimensional model denies the third dimension while claiming its real physical embodiment (volumetric plane), then it contradicts logic, not the science of logic, but the logic of things as a phenomenon.
I'm not asking what I said, as you are misrepresenting my words anyway. I'm asking you to point out where I said it.
There is an important assumption in economics about "other things being equal". It is never exactly fulfilled. You can never tell how accurately it holds for your prices - it is quite possible that each such price is obtained by intersecting curves of completely different shapes (not just shifted ones). Textbooks usually give abstract curves, not real curves.
It does not follow from the fact that a person copes with natural needs (eating, sleeping, etc.) like Socrates that he is also inclined to engage in philosophy.
The textbooks recommend that the optimal purchase and/or sale price of a commodity be determined by the intersection of the supply and demand curves. Since, here considered the technical side of warehouse mind, it is better to move the discussion of market warehouse mind in the next branch, not to confuse the technical and market situations. Welcome.
A model describing a real object must either reflect or not violate the properties of the real. One of the properties of the real is its volumetricity. If a two-dimensional model denies the third dimension, while claiming its real physical embodiment (volumetric plane), it contradicts the logic, not the science of logic, but the logic of things as a phenomenon.
Perhaps you should use wikipedia and broaden your understanding of models. In my opinion, the words of your "authoritative scientist" could well be seen as aheuristic model, or as a mathematical model.
Perhaps you should use wikipedia and broaden your understanding of models. In my opinion, the words of your "authoritative scientist" could well be seen as aheuristic model or as a mathematical model.
So that's the point, if a mathematical model contradicts physics, then it has nothing to do with physical phenomena))) Hence, no mole norms exist in principle.
Are you bored with your life?
What problems does it solve?