Get your stinking corpse back in the crypt.

No, I’m telling you you did us the favor of finishing your thought in English. You didn’t finish your thought in the math statement. How do you expect us to respond? If I provided you with a sentence that had no verb and mangled grammar and spelling and offered it as proof that pure prose economics isn’t ideal, how convinced would you be?

RE: “Lord Kuehns,…” etc. etc.

First, I like my new name a lot. Second, notice it’s not just me that thinks you’re wrong on this. And nobody is saying that prose is a bad way to do economics either. We’re just saying that, as with everything, there are tradeoffs you make by relying exclusively on prose.

But you people have been telling me that “math was the international, universal language of logic” and plain English inadequate to its needs.

And now you tell me that you need English, the language of logic, to understand the math, and I’m the one who’s behind?

Lord Kuehns,

You and I have had this discussion many times before. The outcome has always been the same. You fought and ran away, so you could live to fight another day. But, as far as I’m concerned, you were slaughtered a long time ago, and I don’t go on fighting ghosts.

That’s all for you.

And note that with mathematics you have to clearly state all your assumptions or else they stand out like a sore thumb. When you abuse language like this you conceal those assumptions – which is a huge part of the reason why lots of economists prefer a heavy dose of mathematical formalism.

You’re asking us to compare a complete, contextualized statement in the vernacular to an incomplete, uncontextualized mathematical statement. What the hell do you expect the answer to be? Once again, you’re posing the question in a way that assumes your own conclusions.