"PJ Hooker" wrote:
You only learn new things when you do some of your own
thinking rather than accepting what is being taught to you.

I'm not sure why you are still posting responses to month-old comments,
adding no real substance. Perhaps you are just looking for closure. I hope
the following provides that for you.

I admit that I had misread your comments posted in a different thread 2
months ago, as well as a webpage that you referred to.

I thought that you were saying that there are different __definitions__ of
IRR. But in fact, you did say only: "It doesn't have to be a net present
value equation that is set to zero to find IRR". Implicitly, you said "the"
IRR, not "different IRRs".

Indeed, all of the other equations are algebraically equivalent (given the
same conditions). So as you point out in another response in this thread:
"it wouldn't matter which of [... the ...] IRR Equations we use, we will
still come away with the same internal rate of return", except for some
infinitesimal numerical differences due to binary floating-point
computation.

It's like saying that there are 4 equations for defining a straight line:
y=ax+b, x=(y-b)/a, b=y-ax, and a=(y-b)/x. Since they are algebraically the
same, I would not bother complicating matters by mentioning them unless it
is relevant to the discussion.

However, that's just me. Of course, you are free to say whatever you want.

My real concern was with the impression that there are "different"
definitions of IRR.

But that was my mistake in reading, as I said. Mea culpa!