Zero Vector Target Approached - T Bonds

"ZeroVector.COM" wrote

Why the 7-month delay before posting it?? :-(

"ZeroVector.COM" wrote

Eh? You wrote this post in May this year - *before* having made the forecast in September this year?!

How did you know what forecast you were going to make - did you "forecast the forecast"??! :-((

The date of 12-5-04 was a typo. The correct date for the post was 12-15-04. This means December (The 12th month), 15th (the 15th day), 04 (the year

2004). That is how we write dates in the U.S. where we are based.

All of our forecasts were made in advance of the target prices being reached. Our review of all of our forecasted market prices for the futures markets over the last year and a half shows an 80% accuracy rate. We have actually had a 100% accuracy rate in the last 3 months. All forecasts for the last 3 months are posted on our web site at

See for yourself. Thanks.

:-)

"ZeroVector.COM" wrote

That's not a valid date here. [It would be the 12th day of the 15th month of the year, but as there are only 12 months in any year, it is not valid.]

"ZeroVector.COM" wrote

You are mistaken!

"ZeroVector.COM" wrote

... but not where you posted it - ie in a **UK** group, where we write down dates in a much more reasonable manner.

While you are here, perhaps you could explain just why americans do show their dates in such a silly way - where the *middle* unit (the month, being bigger than a day but smaller than a year) is not shown in the *middle* of the string of numbers??! :-(

Bitstring , from the wonderful person Tim said

Ah, but can YOU explain why the Brits show their dates with least significant item first, but with most significant digit leading?? I mean if you are going to screw up, Xmas this year should be 52/21/4002. Or you could do it the European (Scandinavian, etc) way and write

2004/12/25, which at least has the merit of conforming to standard maths, and will sort in sensible order.

Of course, for avoidance of ambiguity, and when talking to our West-Pondian cousins, it's much safer to go with 25/Dec/2004. Even an Aggie can't get that wrong.

Scripsit GSV Three Minds in a Can

Scandinavian? I grew up in Denmark and lived there till I passed 30, and I have never seen "yyyy/mm/dd" used there. A sizeable minority uses ISO 8601 format "yyyy-mm-dd" (with hyphens rather than solidi), but the traditional forms are "dd/mm" or "dd/mm--yyyy".

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote

Perhaps it's because we all know the current year, so the more interesting bit is often that least significant item (day)?

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote

That's obvious - do you know of *any* language/terminology that shows higher units after smaller units when writing a number anywhere?

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote

That's just silly.

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote

Absolutely agreed. [BTW, I thought that the Japanese did it that way too?]

yyyy/mm/dd has to be the most useful & easily understood method of any of them.

It would also have the advantage that *anyone* looking at it would (probably) understand the date correctly, wherever they come from.

"GSV Three Minds in a Can" wrote

Shame the OP didn't abide by that principle when posting in a UK group!

Who's to say the more interesting or important bit should come first? It often comes last, as in "Come here NOW!".

Written dates over here are an abbreviation, so 17/12 is short for "the 17th day of December" -- nice and obvious. Americans would read 12/17 as "December the 17th", but that itself sounds incomplete too. I wonder if it might come from "In/of December, day the 17th", which sounds stilted, but no more so than the archaic "part the third". If anyone would care to research the etymology, I'd love to hear what they came up with.

Does "four and twenty blackbirds" count?

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Good presentation, I guess. If the viewer/listener is prone to falling asleep from boredom part-way through, it's better to have got the more interesting bit in first!

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

I'd rather say that the more important bit is *first* there already - if someone just said "NOW" then you wouldn't know what they wanted, yet if they just said "Come (here)" then you would know what they wanted, and quite possibly do it straight away anyway!

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Is that a Scottish saying?

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Is that a *modern* construction?

It's not a saying. It's a section heading. Not particularly Scottish AFAIK. Check out the Messiah, if you want to get a handle on it. [Sorry, that was awful]

You didn't ask for "any modern", you asked for "any". :-)