This is a response to Steve K's (3938). Steve, thanks for your several recent posts, which I have read and thought about and hope to have the time to reply soon. On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Steve Keen wrote: > At the risk of insulting Fred, might I suggest that one reason for the > impasse with Ajit is over Fred's use of the word "proportional" to > characterise the relationship between S and L in the formula: > > S = (m.L - V) > > which (correct me if I'mn wrong, but...) Fred agrees characterises his theory? > > Strictly speaking, this formula can only be "proportional" if V=0. If so, > then for example, if m=2, S= 2*L for all values of S and L. If, however, > V>0, then the "proportionality" this formula gives varies as S and L vary. > For example, if m=2 and V=2 then S/L=0 for L=1, S/L=1 for L=1.5, S/L=2 for > L=2, and so on. > > That is not proportionality in the strict meaning of the word. > > Cheers, > Steve Steve, I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not saying that "S is proportional to L". Rather, I am saying that "S is proportional to Ls" (S = m Ls), where Ls = (L - Ln), and Ln = V/m. On the basis of these definitions, and using your example, S is indeed proportional to Ls, with m as the factor of proportionality. This can be seen from the following table, using your example: m L V S Ln Ls S/Ls 2 1.5 2 1 1 0.5 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 Is not this proportionality "in the strict meaning of the word"? Comradely, Fred P.S. By the way, why do you think that I would be insulted by your post? You present a clear logical criticism, without gratuitous insults. I appreciate your post.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EST