A little surprised :) Thought I'd share and ask a NOT rhetorical question. - page 17
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
How do I know if you see it or not?
In your post - there is no example. He's just trolling.
There's no example in your post. :) There's a flurry.
You argue that you can do with whole numbers. And I, in turn, have expressed, to put it mildly, bewilderment.
You said, "I don't see an example?" - I said I couldn't know if you saw an example or not. There is no example.
An example of the need to switch to double: trivial calculation of MA or any other indicator. It is enough to divide integers (virtualized from real numbers) to get a wild loss of accuracy. Profit in money cannot be calculated either. About this I have clearly and distinctly said earlier. It cannot be understood without going into practice.
Calculation of MA of 10 values
SUM (10,11, 12, 10, 10, 25, 14, 9, 21, 17, 10 ) 139
------------------------------------------------------ = ------ = 13.9
1010
If we set the point value to 1000 we get
SUM ( 10000,11000, 12000, 10000, 25000, 14000, 9000, 21000, 17000, 10000 ) = 139000/10=13900 ( points )
That is the same 13.9 that is deducted in the printout simply by translating from points to value.
Or you can simply calculate everything in rational numbers. In fact even now there is a point - for each duble It is +/-E000 . That is, there is a WHOLE number and there is a mantissa.
Yes, the entire thread is flooded, no one is talking to him for three days, and he keeps trolling and trolling.
You argue that you can do with whole numbers. And I, in turn, expressed, to put it mildly, bewilderment.
You said, "I don't see an example?" - I said I couldn't know whether you saw an example or not. There's no flooding.
What in the text above isn't offtopic ? Just don't write everything here, that's all. Can not? Well, you need to be banned so you do not litter the thread.
So don't bring the thread up.
It's enough to read the title of the thread to understand that it's flooding.
You do not want to admit the obvious fact that MT ME and Tester are developed by a team, a team of professionals, a team of professionals both in programming and in the field of algorithms.
You came in as an intellectual locksmith and start screaming that integrals and derivatives have not helped anyone in life. And you just don't allow the idea that you don't know them, that's why they don't help you.
This is an allegory, you don't have to shout that you know integrals.
So don't bring the thread up.
It's enough to read the title of the thread to understand that it's flooding.
You don't want to admit the obvious fact that MT ME and Tester are developed by a team, a team of professionals, a team of professionals both in programming and in algorithms.
You come in like an intellectual locksmith and start screaming that integrals and derivatives haven't helped anyone yet in life. And you just don't accept the idea that you don't know them, so they don't help you.
This is an allegory, you don't have to shout that you know integrals.
I'm not bringing it up.
About "integrals" it's exactly the opposite. This is what I say - think about it, everything is possible, even if using MT optimizer will take years until you get the result, you don't have to get stuck on it - do it yourself.
What makes you think I'm not a professional. I have been programming since I was 82 and have worked, for example, at MS and EMC. Don't try to measure everything on yourself.
I don't do that.
About "integrals", it's exactly the opposite. This is what I am saying - think, everything is possible, even if using MT optimizer will take YEARS until you get the result, you should not get stuck on it - do it yourself.
What makes you think I'm not a professional. I have been programming since '82 and have worked in MS.
The level of training of the person can also be determined by his posts. If you say that all can be calculated in shorts, it means that you simply have nothing to do with algorithms. Developers of iterative algorithms have been struggling for many years to improve accuracy, trying to reduce the accumulated error and not destroy the entire calculation. A huge base of algorithms has been developed. And you believe that all of them (these prominent mathematicians) are fools who do not understand that it is faster to integer calculate. Take my word for it, all this integer stuff is already implemented, but at the very fastest, lowest level. And the double as an integer binary floating point number.
And if you understand the representation of numbers in binary form, you will understand that even an error in 16 digits affects the total rounded result.
like 0.3 or 0.7.
By the way, this idea like yours with shorts has already been implemented in the algorithm of data compression when storing quotes. So do not think that you invented everything in the world.