So that’s gotta be a typo, right? Not that this asshole deserves any benefit of any doubts, but since they then set epsilon to 4 (which is greater than 0), they must have simply put “<” instead of “>”, right? It’s not a typo one is likely to make, but I think it must be one.
Presumably why it has raw LaTeX-style subscripting like tau_i but isn’t actually rendering it. When you ask an LLM to regurgitate academic-sounding math it’s gonna reproduce patterns from both unicode rendetings and source LaTeX.
Apparently, it’s not a typo. In finance math, they just quote the absolute value of epsilon (because it is always negative). The equation presented doesn’t work regardless of whether or not they got the signs correct, because the logic behind it is wrong (epsilon and phi aren’t constants)
So that’s gotta be a typo, right? Not that this asshole deserves any benefit of any doubts, but since they then set epsilon to 4 (which is greater than 0), they must have simply put “<” instead of “>”, right? It’s not a typo one is likely to make, but I think it must be one.
well, this shit was probably written by an LLM
Presumably why it has raw LaTeX-style subscripting like
tau_ibut isn’t actually rendering it. When you ask an LLM to regurgitate academic-sounding math it’s gonna reproduce patterns from both unicode rendetings and source LaTeX.That would make a lot of sense! It’s very like an LLM to say something and then several lines later contradict that thing. Seems possible!
Apparently, it’s not a typo. In finance math, they just quote the absolute value of epsilon (because it is always negative). The equation presented doesn’t work regardless of whether or not they got the signs correct, because the logic behind it is wrong (epsilon and phi aren’t constants)
Huh. Well, that’s fun. Economists can eat my whole ass, those fuckers absolutely suck. Thanks for the info!