|
|
|
|
@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
|
|
|
|
|
In the course of maintaining large, complex sets of accounts with many
|
|
|
|
|
transactions, it is very easy to make errors that may go undetected for
|
|
|
|
|
a long time, and be appallingly difficult to track down, even when
|
|
|
|
|
double-entry bookkepping is used.
|
|
|
|
|
double-entry bookkeeping is used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</PARA>
|
|
|
|
|
</SECT1>
|
|
|
|
|
@ -49,7 +49,8 @@
|
|
|
|
|
accounting; if you add something in to one account, you
|
|
|
|
|
have to subtract it from somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
|
When this is done regularly and consistently, this results in the
|
|
|
|
|
magical identity of accounting:
|
|
|
|
|
identity of accounting:
|
|
|
|
|
<ANCHOR ID="IDENTITY">
|
|
|
|
|
<ENVAR>Total of Debits = Total of Credits.</ENVAR>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -86,11 +87,10 @@
|
|
|
|
|
somewhat more accurate to call it <EMPHASIS>multiple-</EMPHASIS>entry
|
|
|
|
|
bookkeeping. Unfortunately, there's 700 years of history of use
|
|
|
|
|
of the term, which sufficiently discourages changing it. (And you
|
|
|
|
|
thought parts of Unix were criufty and old!)
|
|
|
|
|
thought parts of Unix were crufty and old!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</PARA>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</PARA>
|
|
|
|
|
<PARA><EMPHASIS>Insider knowledge:</EMPHASIS>
|
|
|
|
|
Bank statements are frequently written up from the
|
|
|
|
|
<EMPHASIS>bank's</EMPHASIS> perspective, which is
|
|
|
|
|
|