The two methods
yield identical results (assuming bases are the same for both prospective and retrospective calculations).
These are just two different ways to calculate the same valuation, hence
they yield identical results.
Analytically, the integrals
yield an identical result.
Not exact matches
Scientific claims rest on the idea that experiments repeated under nearly
identical conditions ought to
yield approximately the same
results, but until very recently, very few had bothered to check in a systematic way whether this was actually the case.
Other than the DELUSION of imaginary beings, they are
identical and
yield EXACTLY the same
results, which are NONE at all!
Worse, each run using
identical input
yields different
results, so they average several runs.
This method
yielded patterns of temperature change that were nearly
identical to the RegEM - infilled reconstructions, with a
resulting West Antarctic trend of 0.12 Deg C / decade.
Monthly anomalies from microwave data (not affected by clouds)
yield virtually
identical results.
To my surprise, both
yielded virtually
identical results.