82,891
edits
Lentil convexity: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
The point? Modelling normal distributions of independent events is easy, and safe. Modelling distributions of interconnected events isn’t. It isn’t just a case of more complex maths. It isn’t ''possible''. Now, mis-modelling overall lentil demand is a relatively low-stakes game: liable to annoy peaceniks — who are by nature unlikely to foment insurrection, and annoying them is kind of amusing anyway — plus, realistically (unless it ''is'' Armageddon, in which case lentil shortage is not the problem) actual consumption of lentils won’t change, so the supply-shortage will quickly sort itself out. | The point? Modelling normal distributions of independent events is easy, and safe. Modelling distributions of interconnected events isn’t. It isn’t just a case of more complex maths. It isn’t ''possible''. Now, mis-modelling overall lentil demand is a relatively low-stakes game: liable to annoy peaceniks — who are by nature unlikely to foment insurrection, and annoying them is kind of amusing anyway — plus, realistically (unless it ''is'' Armageddon, in which case lentil shortage is not the problem) actual consumption of lentils won’t change, so the supply-shortage will quickly sort itself out. | ||
So a spot of [[convexity]] might not matter for the | So a spot of [[convexity]] might not matter for the world’s lentil purveyors — but how about those in the multi-billion dollar global transport and hospitality industries? What would ''they'' do if everyone, all around the world, without warning — you know, ''billions'' of people — as one, ''indefinitely'', stayed indoors? | ||
Like ''that'' would ever happen. | Like ''that'' would ever happen. | ||