Implications Behind CFAI Numbered Equations ask, attention, assigned, appears, anybody

dyga

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?

TheMBAGlover

So you’re suggesting that it’s not intended to be linked to the learning outcomes or what the candidate is expected to know, rather it’s a convention used to summarize drawn on concepts?  I wish the CFAI made a point to explain this because I took it to mean that these were the equations you needed to memorize.  Thanks for clearing that up.

cityboy

because they make a point with the equation number in the writeup somewhere.
because sometimes it is easier to understand with numbers what concept they are trying to drive home (instead of writing a huge paragraph in words - what could have been seen by the numbers themselves).
and sometimes because what they want to drive home - they mention in 3 to 4 different ways in the book. (and very often that is something that you would see appear on the exam).