Temasek selling Merrill Lynch at a loss
-
Originally posted by Mostwanted5125:
Oh dear, I did not say u are wrong but rather incomplete.
1stly, a function is sufficient condition to ensure relationship. A relation is neccesarry condition for function but not sufficient though.
So, it is really incomplete to say that a function is a function of "x" say if other variables are also of importance.
From ur post about temperature of water, pressure and stuff are equally important physical variables.
y = g(x,z), and f(x) = g(x,z).means y = f(x) is correct only if "z" is not an explicit variable or the set "x" is capable of spanning the set "z" . In short, if 2 variables are independent, then it must be explicitly stated to give the true image.
And pressure cannot be span by the basis of "heat supplied" set. That is why I say there is a need for greater clarification.
BTW, this are not of importance now...I am way digressing too much. Sorry...
So, it is really incomplete to say that a function is a function of "x" say if other variables are also of importance.
Yes, I did agree with you it is incomplete. But it is not wrong. There's the difference between being incomplete and being wrong.
But this is what you have said
it is definitely wrong to say Hamiltonian is a function of time and stopping there. It is an incomplete portray of what Hamitlonian Function is.
Yes, it is an incomplete portrayal, but it is not wrong to say it.
-
Realise the word "stopping there" What I meant was a strong conviction to say "Hamiltonian is a function of time "and with absolutlity. It gave confusion to mathematical physicists for a precise definition is needed.
I am not sure in ur 1st post whether u are certain of a single variable. But I understand what u want to say now... In a very general context, ur term of usage is acceptable.
But 0o0 is dead wrong to say because of the existence of other variables, F cannot be a function of "x". This is very wrong because "x" is indeed a variable.
His logic would be" A and B implies F, therefore X implies F is wrong". There is no such logical form of argument.
-
Originally posted by Mostwanted5125:
.
But 0o0 is dead wrong to say because of the existence of other variables, F cannot be a function of "x". This is very wrong because "x" is indeed a variable.
His logic would be" A and B implies F, therefore X implies F is wrong". There is no such logical form of argument.
Hey dude, can you be kind enough quote what I said.
-
Originally posted by Mostwanted5125:
Realise the word "stopping there" What I meant was a strong conviction to say "Hamiltonian is a function of time "and with absolutlity. It gave confusion to mathematical physicists for a precise definition is needed.
I am not sure in ur 1st post whether u are certain of a single variable. But I understand what u want to say now... In a very general context, ur term of usage is acceptable.
But 0o0 is dead wrong to say because of the existence of other variables, F cannot be a function of "x". This is very wrong because "x" is indeed a variable.
His logic would be" A and B implies F, therefore X implies F is wrong". There is no such logical form of argument.
But 0o0 is dead wrong to say because of the existence of other variables, F cannot be a function of "x". This is very wrong because "x" is indeed a variable.
Yup, something like that.
I guess there was some misunderstanding because this topic came from a different thread long ago.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Yes, I did agree with you it is incomplete. But it is not wrong.
It is academically right, but pratically meaningless. -
Originally posted by 0 o 0:
Property price can be affected by many factors, it includes location, supply and demand, natural disaster, economic growth and stability, government policies etc,
While inflation on the other hand can be affected by war, market liquidity, industrial cartel, currency fluctuation, interest rate, taxation etc.
By claiming that inflation is a function of property price, you are simply showing your lack on understanding in what you are talking about.
No foundation in Economics? I think you should keep this statement for yourself instead.
U mentions other variables..."location,supply and demand, market liquidity....etc"
The statement"inflation is a function of property price,....." implies u are saying because of other factors/variables, property price cannot be A variable of inflation.
Unless the person u are rebutting use "Inflation is THE function of property price", then ur statement makes logical sense.
U cannot base on other factors and rebutt the existence of a certain factor.
I hope u understand what I am saying.
-
Originally posted by O o O:
It is academically right, but pratically meaningless.Ya but then knowledge is power
-
Originally posted by Mostwanted5125:
Realise the word "stopping there" What I meant was a strong conviction to say "Hamiltonian is a function of time "and with absolutlity. It gave confusion to mathematical physicists for a precise definition is needed.
I am not sure in ur 1st post whether u are certain of a single variable. But I understand what u want to say now... In a very general context, ur term of usage is acceptable.
But 0o0 is dead wrong to say because of the existence of other variables, F cannot be a function of "x". This is very wrong because "x" is indeed a variable.
His logic would be" A and B implies F, therefore X implies F is wrong". There is no such logical form of argument.
1) The NUS Professor (Real Estate) did a study on the effects of Inflation on Real Estate. The relationship is between Inflation and Real Estate Hedging.
2) It's probable that other things could have affected the price of real estate, such as political climate, scarcity building materials, cost of land, cost of property tax, weather, health conditions, availability of fashion, variety of entertainment, ease of transportation, environmental issues, etc. But in Social Science, it's hard to hold all these variables constant and manipulate a single variable to test it's impact, so we have to make certain assumptions.
3) Yes. Property prices could be affected by temporal changes in demand and supply, but isn't it logical that if demand and supply varies (ceterus paribus), it will regress to it's mean (or average) in time.
4) It's not wrong to say that the price of rice is affected by the supply of rice in the market, although the price of rice could be also affected by the money supply and consumer's attitude towards rice.
-
Originally posted by Beautiful951:
Ya but then knowledge is power
If you teach the theory of relativity to an idiot, he will consider it meaningless too.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
1) The NUS Professor (Real Estate) did a study on the effects of Inflation on Real Estate. The relationship is between Inflation and Real Estate Hedging.
2) It's probable that other things could have affected the price of real estate, such as political climate, scarcity building materials, cost of land, cost of property tax, weather, health conditions, availability of fashion, variety of entertainment, ease of transportation, environmental issues, etc. But in Social Science, it's hard to hold all these variables constant and manipulate a single variable to test it's impact, so we have to make certain assumptions.
3) Yes. Property prices could be affected by temporal changes in demand and supply, but isn't it logical that if demand and supply varies (ceterus paribus), it will regress to it's mean (or average) in time.
4) It's not wrong to say that the price of rice is affected by the supply of rice in the market, although the price of rice could be also affected by the money supply and consumer's attitude towards rice.
Well for ur case...I have no argument....I am no expert in real estate...that prof is of different research field as mine.....
I am just trying to say eagle is not being very precise and 0o0 is logically wrong....that is all.
-
Originally posted by Mostwanted5125:
U mentions other variables..."location,supply and demand, market liquidity....etc"
The statement"inflation is a function of property price,....." implies u are saying because of other factors/variables, property price cannot be A variable of inflation.
Unless the person u are rebutting use "Inflation is THE function of property price", then ur statement makes logical sense.
U cannot base on other factors and rebutt the existence of a certain factor.
I hope u understand what I am saying.
If you follow all his arguments and logic, I seriously doubt he understood you at all. -
Originally posted by Mostwanted5125:
Well for ur case...I have no argument....I am no expert in real estate...that prof is of different research field as mine.....
I am just trying to say eagle is not being very precise and 0o0 is logically wrong....that is all.
You doing classical mechanics?Quantum mechanics cheeminology.
-
Originally posted by Mostwanted5125:
Well for ur case...I have no argument....I am no expert in real estate...that prof is of different research field as mine.....
I am just trying to say eagle is not being very precise and 0o0 is logically wrong....that is all.
Well, I will agree I'm not precise in your definitions, but it's sufficient for the context being used here.
Would like to kindly invite you to help the other students at Homework Forum when you are more free
-
Originally posted by Mostwanted5125:
U mentions other variables..."location,supply and demand, market liquidity....etc"
The statement"inflation is a function of property price,....." implies u are saying because of other factors/variables, property price cannot be A variable of inflation.
Unless the person u are rebutting use "Inflation is THE function of property price", then ur statement makes logical sense.
U cannot base on other factors and rebutt the existence of a certain factor.
I hope u understand what I am saying.
Please dont get carried away by your sudden urge to get academical and scientifical about what we are talking here. What I am trying to imply is that inflation rate and property price doesnt have a directly relationship and it is stupid to make statement like during the time of inflation, it is best to invest your money in property because it is is a SURE bet to hedge against inflation, even better than CPF 2.5% return.
Does the following statements from Maurizio13 and Eagle inplies that Inflation is THE function of property price?
The second element is inflation, the property you bought for $1,400,000 with an inflation of 6.7% a year, would have been priced at $1,493,800 at the end of 1 year.
Property goes up in price with inflation. You forgot about that
-
Academic stuffs are the most important things in this world.
-
My field is related to Quantum.
Sorry Eagle, it is a professional habit of mine to correct any imprecise definition. I hope I have not offended u. I will help out in homework forum if I have time. Thanks
Sorry 0o0, if my criticism of ur lack of logic makes u hit the roof top. But any argument have to be logically correct...it is not just of academic use. Any incorrect logic will give wrong results....this is guranteed by laws of mathematics.
I am sorry for so many digression.
-
Originally posted by O o O:
Please dont get carried away by your sudden urge to get academical and scientifical about what we are talking here. What I am trying to imply is that inflation rate and property price doesnt have a directly relationship and it is stupid to make statement like during the time of inflation, it is best to invest your money in property because it is is a SURE bet to hedge against inflation, even better than CPF 2.5% return.
Does the following statements from Maurizio13 and Eagle inplies that Inflation is THE function of property price?
Can you point to me the specific post where I said what you claim I said? -
Originally posted by O o O:
Please dont get carried away by your sudden urge to get academical and scientifical about what we are talking here. What I am trying to imply is that inflation rate and property price doesnt have a directly relationship and it is stupid to make statement like during the time of inflation, it is best to invest your money in property because it is is a SURE bet to hedge against inflation, even better than CPF 2.5% return.
Does the following statements from Maurizio13 and Eagle inplies that Inflation is THE function of property price?
clutching on straws, eh.....that all too familiar feeling?
-
Originally posted by Mostwanted5125:
My field is related to Quantum.
Sorry Eagle, it is a professional habit of mine to correct any imprecise definition. I hope I have not offended u. I will help out in homework forum if I have time. Thanks
Sorry 0o0, if my criticism of ur lack of logic makes u hit the roof top. But any argument have to be logically correct...it is not just of academic use. Any incorrect logic will give wrong results....this is guranteed by laws of mathematics.
I am sorry for so many digression.
Sorry Eagle, it is a professional habit of mine to correct any imprecise definition. I hope I have not offended u. I will help out in homework forum if I have time. Thanks
No la, not offended at all. You are good! For me as an engineer, a little imprecision, as long as it does not affect the engineering results, doesn't matter. There's always this joke between engineers and physicts which I think you should know :D
Pity I'm not taking physics at the uni year 2,3,4 level, if not it would be good to consult you more on quantum stuff. I stopped at year 1 though on engineering physics.
-
Originally posted by Mostwanted5125:
My field is related to Quantum.
Sorry Eagle, it is a professional habit of mine to correct any imprecise definition. I hope I have not offended u. I will help out in homework forum if I have time. Thanks
Sorry 0o0, if my criticism of ur lack of logic makes u hit the roof top. But any argument have to be logically correct...it is not just of academic use. Any incorrect logic will give wrong results....this is guranteed by laws of mathematics.
I am sorry for so many digression.
Sure, lets talk about logic.
Singapore current inflation is (x) 7% and Q208 private property price grew at a rate of (y) 0.2%. So based on your believe that y = g(x,z), and f(x) = g(x,z).means y = f(x) and it is guranteed by laws of mathematics, can I know what will be your investment decision to hedge against inflation? Would you invest in property?
Or you need to figure out what are the 10 or 20 variable beside x and y?
Academic maths are static, investment and economic conditions are dynamic, so please dont try to impress me with you maths when we are talking about economic.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
If you teach the theory of relativity to an idiot, he will consider it meaningless too.I find it meaningless already. I must be an idiot.
-
Originally posted by O o O:
Sure, lets talk about logic.
Singapore current inflation is (x) 7% and Q208 private property price grew at a rate of (y) 0.2%. So based on your believe that y = g(x,z), and f(x) = g(x,z).means y = f(x) and it is guranteed by laws of mathematics, can I know what will be your investment decision to hedge against inflation? Would you invest in property?
Or you need to figure out what are the 10 or 20 variable beside x and y?
Academic maths are static, investment and economic conditions are dynamic, so please dont try to impress me with you maths when we are talking about economic.
Sighs.Like I said before, you need to take it's housing price from inception and the rate of inflation from that period, make a historical comparison.
It's stupid to do a specific period comparison. e.g. If I have a restaurant, the business for today was bad $0 sales. Am I suppose to use the figure today to justify my current year's profit?
Sighs.
Housing prices after successive periods of high growth will correct itself.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Sighs.Like I said before, you need to take it's housing price from inception and the rate of inflation from that period, make a historical comparison.
It's stupid to do a specific period comparison. e.g. If I have a restaurant, the business for today was bad $0 sales. Am I suppose to use the figure today to justify my current year's profit?
Sighs.
Housing prices after successive periods of high growth will correct itself.
y = f(x)
-
Originally posted by O o O:
y = f(x)
I am still waiting for you to direct me to the post where I said what you claimed I said.Maybe you put words into our mouths again?
Business as usual isn't it?
-
I see a troll who cannot even handle simple 'static' academic maths, yet want to attempt to discuss 'dynamic' stuff
Wanting to run before being able to walk properly.