笔者认为《“多笔小额”贸易无须保险》一文(见本刊1995年第2期,及第3期对该文的补正)的标题和提法尚有可以进一步完善的地方。 首先,“小额”的提法容易使人误解为鸡零狗碎的小买卖。其实,该文的观点和推导出的结果很清楚,所谓“小额”是指每笔金额在总额中所占比例较小,也就是说,是指相对的“小额”,而不是指绝对的“小额”。例如,对普通家庭而言,一辆汽车不属“小额”,因此 The author believes that there is still room for further improvement in the title and formulation of the article “There is no Need for Insurance in Multi-small Trade” (see the 2nd issue of this journal in 1995 and the third amendment of this article). First of all, the reference to “small” is easily misunderstood as a small sale. In fact, the article’s point of view and the derived results are clear, the so-called “small” means that the amount of each sum of money in a smaller proportion, that is, refers to the relative “small” rather than absolute The “small”. For example, a car is not “small” for the average family, so