Formulae we DON'T have to memorise

Leunames makes a good spot in another thread which I thought might be worth highlighting (see below). At this stage we don’t have time to commit unnecessary formulae to memory. Can anyone else highlight other sections in CFAI text which specifically states certain formulae do not require deriving/memorisation?? Re: Treynor-Black Posted by: Leunames (IP Logged) [hide posts from this user] Date: May 15, 2008 06:48PM "…at the start of reading 71 in the CFAI text it states “candidates are not responsible, within Reading 71, for deriving or memorizing the formulas introduced in sections 4-6” Can I infer then that any and all questions on the test regarding calculation of alpha weights, performance measurements, analyst accuracy, etc. will give you the equations necessary to complete the problem? I ask because throughout all of their summary for reading 71, schweser doesn’t have their usual “CFA institute will probably give you the equations necessary” etc. etc. that they did at times for the quant section, and the entire reading appears like you need to know the formulae by heart. Good spot Leunames. I am going to skip learing all the formulas in section - already got enough to memorise at this stage. Can anyone else help point out other sections in CFAI text where it specifically states we are not required to derive/memorise certain formulas.

C’mon people, there must be someone who has gone through CFAI texts and found certain formulae specifically mentioned that don’t need memorising. (Might be dangerous relying solely on Schweser’s judgement). Pls share and let’s make each other’s lives easier…

I’m sure there will be nothing about a) Schrodinger equations b) Arrhenius equation c) Feynmann-Kac equations so I would forget about memorizing those.

I just completed mugging these… The Hodge conjecture The Riemann hypothesis Yang-Mills existence and mass gap Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness The Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture Goldbach’s conjecture and its weak version The values of g(k) and G(k) in Waring’s problem Collatz conjecture (3n + 1 conjecture) Gilbreath’s conjecture Left out Schrodinger’s equations as that was causing my quasi quantum to be in disequilibrium

Transitive property of equality?

dinesh.sundrani Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Collatz conjecture (3n + 1 conjecture) Every person who has ever earned a Ph.D. in anything remotely mathematical has tried both to prove and disprove this. It’s an excellent way to waste a week or two of your life.

haha… Of all the list I did Schrodinger’s equations as a part of the engineering academic, and I was contemplating quitting the whole engineering business.