Machine learning in trading: theory, models, practice and algo-trading - page 3535
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I don't have a queue of investors to rely on other people's money, and I'm more responsible for other people's money than my own.
The investor takes the risks, you take the risks of sitting around and dumbing down in programming. Money is a tool like everything else.
The investor takes the risks, you take the risks of sitting around dumbing down programming. Money is a tool like everything else.
Sounds good.
I would also give up programming ideally - just ideas and algorithms.
Sounds good.
I would also give up programming ideally - just ideas and algorithms.
A bizarre picture on the graph is obtained - y is the number of selected quantum segments for all iterations on the predictor, and x is the percentage of stable ones.
I don't understand how to interpret the result.
resembles moire in modular operations...or in short - properties of integers, divisibility/ multiplicity and so on. (accumulated double errors also look like this).
resembles moire in modular operations...or in short - properties of integers, divisibility/ multiplicity and so on. (accumulated double errors also look like this).
Yes, there's an obvious bug somewhere.
Back in the thousandth year I told you that you should look at the distribution of weights of the network, but the local audience is all giggles and giggles.
Just by looking at the distribution of weights you can already judge a lot of things, including the fact that this is not a working system (or working).
In general, the distribution of weights is one of the litmus papers, you can judge by them even without doing OOS.
To a bum, bum's bum.
A freeloader - cholyavego.
A pisser is a pisser.
Some kind of matrix? No, just nonsense, the distribution of desires and opportunities, yeah, the same omnipresent distributions.
A bizarre pattern on the graph turned out - y is the number of sampled quantum segments for all iterations on the predictor, and x is the percentage of stable ones.
I don't understand how to interpret the result.