▲ | kbrkbr 7 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I see that. I just have a hard time seeing how it is related to my question. Euclidean geometry was an "obvious mathematical certainty". Until it wasn't, and we learned that there are no "obvious mathematical certainties". So I wanted to understand what you mean by this concept. But we can leave it. It's not important. No harm meant. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | d4rkn0d3z 6 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There are mathematical certainties. In this instance we have that all exponentially growing bubbles will necessarily display the property that values grow and at an increasing rate just before the bubble bursts. This is so fundamental that I can't believe you don't see it. You can construct the growth curve out of this very fact alone. Therefore, the simple fact of growing values and increasing rates of growth in values is not determining bubble/non-bubble. In other words, the statement "I know I am not chasing a bubble because valuations are high and growing at an increasing rate" is categorically false because this property is a common indicator of the exact opposite; that you are in an exponentially growing bubble. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|