Dirk.Net

This Economist article discusses recent research which suggests that a clean body might lead to a more morally questionable behaviour in the individual. Is the extreme emphasis on corporal cleanliness the reason why we see the famous laissez faire attitude in Thailand known as “mai pen rain (it doesn’t matter)” , which often also extends to matters of morality and ethics? Does this help to explain Thailand’s short-cut mentality and ubiquitous petty corruption? Might this explain the sexual deviance found in Japan? And the prudery in the untidier parts of the world?

As the Economist’s Buttonwood points out, when everyone heads for the exit, all get squeezed. This defeats all hedging strategies. The late eighties and nineties brought us the end of a formulaic approach to politics (Socialism vs. Capitalism); the current decade follows up with the end of a formulaic approach to investing (Long vs. Short, Stocks vs. Bonds etc.).

A brilliant comment by Hyun-U Sohn sums it up:

The article betrays the view of correlations and other statistics as describing laws of some kind. That you distinguish between dynamic and static correlations and between “short”- and “long”-term ones doesn’t really make a difference. The implicit belief that there are hidden laws, to be uncovered by data analysis and then extrapolated to future investment decisions/ advice, is one of the more fundamental, philosophical factors behind today’s crisis and the rise of financial “engineering” that preceded it.
My own view is that there are no laws, only analogies. Statistics can serve as summaries of history and as expressions of subjective beliefs about the future or about hidden facts. The circumstances that led to the data showing low correlations between, say, commodities and equities in one period were specific to their time. They may or may not look similar in the future, and even if they were completely dissimilar, they may still give rise to a set of similar data for a while before the dissimilarities show, perhaps abruptly.

What is the antonym of integer (whole number)? I found nothing in any dictionaries or a clear answer on the web, but this in the Wikipedia:

Historically, any number that did not represent a whole was called a “fraction”. The numbers that we now call “decimals” were originally called “decimal fractions”; the numbers we now call “fractions” were called “vulgar fractions”, the word “vulgar” meaning “commonplace”.

“Fraction” makes sense, as anything that is not integer (whole) is fractured (broken). Or is it?