Market patterns - page 14
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
The point is that if we replace the word "Multiplication" by any other word, nothing changes in the proof. In this case we introduce a term so similar to the familiar word "Multiplication". It is introduced - it means that its definition is given (see three paragraphs).
Once again: Your proof is only true in some very common cases. In other cases (in cases of quaternions for example) it will not be true. And if so, the universality of axioms and proofs is out of the question. Therefore to exercise in pure knowledge and especially to try to extend it to all spheres of this world is senseless and leads to delusion.
Another example of the relativity of axioms:
R + R = 2R
If R is apples or coins then this addition works correctly, however if R is the resistance of two parallel wires then this addition will not work. R + R is 1/2 of R. So if depending on R even addition works differently, on what grounds do we speak about universality of axioms and proofs?
The path taken determines the direction. A deviation from the direction, therefore, will lead to a turn in the other direction.
Do a simple test. Sit behind the wheel of your car, facing the rear window. Try to drive at least a few hundred metres in this way. And I'll see how knowing your past route has helped you reach your destination without an accident.
Because predicting on the basis of the future is absurd :)
The motorist goes from point A to point B.
If one were to look at driving as an analogy for trading, it would be a clandyke. The whole point of forecasting in general is the temporal continuity of a fairly broad class of regularities. In our case it is the relationship of asset price increments to each other and to the increments of other assets. The idea is that the regularities should not be faster than the quantization step of a series, only then the forecasting is possible. And the basic pattern is very simple given the nature of the source of the price series. To generalise completely, it's continuities of the first 2 orders of increments with different step scales. The whole alchemy is the selection of combinations of calculation of these increments depending on volatility and noisiness.
Trends are determined by first-order increments and oscillation by second-order increments. All 100500+ oscillators and trend indulators use this principle and mix it up by timeframes. But the essence is the same. That is why they say oscillators are trend indicators, while division into breakout and pullback systems is conditional. And indeed, calculation of the second increment of a series shows a potential reversal or correction only if there is no lag, but there is a lag and, as a rule, it is the beginning of a new micro-trend.
The trend system differs from the rollback system only in that the rollback reacts immediately to potential reversal signs, and the trend system, due to the fact that the first derivative is more lagged, reacts later.
And again about cars. The driver drives the car on the road, which means that one can trade in the trend direction knowing the direction of his/her movement, with the targets at the nearest intersections. If so, consider the dynamics of speed (acceleration) and on brakes and turns, close/reverse accordingly.
The main point is that the speed keeps continuity. A car cannot go at a speed that varies quite randomly, like a white noise. I wouldn't drive then)))
As it is, it's fine!
You may use "buy and hold" on a highway, or you may use pips at some rally in the forest (if forest robbers allow it).
Do a simple test. Sit behind the wheel of your car, facing the rear window. Try to drive at least a few hundred metres. And I'll see how knowing your past route has helped you to reach your destination without an accident.
On my way back, I'll give it a go.
Again, it's about cars. The driver drives the car on the road, which means that you can trade on the trend, with targets at the nearest intersections, knowing the direction of his movement. If so, consider the dynamics of speed (acceleration) and on brakes and turns, close/reverse accordingly.
The main point is that the speed keeps continuity. A car cannot go at a speed that varies quite randomly, like a white noise. I wouldn't drive then)))
As it is, it's fine!
You may use "buy and hold" on a motorway, or you may use pips at some rally in the forest (if forest robbers allow it).
For some reason, when it comes to forecasting, everyone means predicting based on past price conditions. But is this kind of prediction applicable to all processes? Suppose you are driving a car through town. You turn left, then right, then you go straight through the intersection. How does your traveled path determine your future trajectory? The answer is obvious - it doesn't. If you now turn left, it is absolutely irrelevant whether you went straight ahead or left at another intersection. That's why motorists look straight ahead, not through the rear window of their car.
So on what basis do we make the assumption that the movement of the price is determined by its past movement, if even simpler phenomena are useless to analyse from this point of view?
An incorrect comparison, as motorists can observe the future through the front window, while traders "drive" with an "impenetrable front window", guided only by the "rear-view mirrors".
Simply put, a motorist sees obstacles in front and therefore can easily bypass them, i.e. make an adequate decision. But traders see nothing ahead, so they assume that history is likely to repeat itself in the future, just as it has on previous occasions.
I'll try it out on the way back.
That is, you will drive based on what you see ahead, not behind you. Which is what I had to prove.
I will drive back based on the previous route, taking into account places with traffic jams, petrol stations, schools and so on.
That's why it's quicker to get back.
How would you perform this task: determine the most likely movement of a motorist at the moments when he is approaching junctions. Assuming that his optimal route is not likely to be the shortest distance between the points of departure and destination.