Footnotes to-p.4 •
I
1) Although: Champernowne r s, theory is mors complicated than the
simple- model which takes its placs in the above reasoning,
we. can easily extend the conclusions:. With Shampernowne, the-
.." promotion is stochastic, with probabilities'of .non-promotion
and demotion» In. this more general-case p in, the above solution
■ T has to be replaced by b which is the root of ht he - characteristic.
_ f ~~ r -L . > .. rjftf ■
equation of the matrix aT
't'W W- X'hL h £> tc&i ,
/
-/ .
'"' •'The Pareto coefficient -in the simple case is - ^ °
the ratio
‘ of the- parameters of the'two-exponential distributionsin the
. . .... N
more- general case of' Champernowne the Pareto; coefficient is*
In. b
» h could be regarded as .-the-parameter of'an age dis-
. -T
as age classesj
tribution,. if the classes (states of the system) are regarded
, SlBsf&lr ■fc r 3f~ f Ci, VL ic fcW ti~t.
* £r &&<*•■. <«2*-
2-X Champernowne .apparently did nor know Yule r s„ paper: It was
■ Hi.Simonis merit to have.brough“ it. to 'the- attention -of
i economists ;. unfortunately he reproduced! it: in a form which
obscured its essence* which is ehe interplay of the two ex
ponential distributions >. i.e. of two stochastic processes-
/ a
ylA.
- ßJ) Lsts&ij' 1 Ij?* ,X-
.... ’ L .. ' '
} ^k ■ ,/y
c >uya~
t
(J? \p\, ^ tt*- l -
sy* £*TV^