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^