Implications Behind CFAI Numbered Equations
| Does anybody know if the CFAI established implications for the formulas and equations that are assigned a number in the CFAI readings? In L1 I worked off the assumption that those were the equations that I needed to know in and out. On L2 I am paying closer attention to the LOS and there appears to be a disconnect between the LOS and the equations that are accentuated in the readings by virtue of being assigned a number. For example, I am finding that an LOS will ask you to explain (and not calculate) a particular model or the implications of a particular concept, and then the corresponding equation will be numbered. Conversely, there will be an LOS that asks you to calculate a particular model and then the corresponding equation will not be accentuated with a number. Is anybody else finding the formula numbering convention confusing? There has to be an established reason for why certain equations are numbered, while others are not and it clearly doesn’t hinge on the LOS. Does anybody know what that reason is? |
发表于 2013-5-7 21:47
| 
