Market patterns - page 15
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
An incorrect comparison, as motorists can see the future through the front window, whereas traders 'drive' with an 'impenetrable front window', guided only by the 'rear-view mirrors'.
Simply put, the motorist sees obstacles in front and can therefore easily avoid them, i.e. make an adequate decision. Traders, on the other hand, cannot see anything ahead, so they assume that history is likely to repeat itself in the future, just as it has on previous occasions.
I'm not comparing a motorist to a trader. I am comparing the motorist to the market. It, the market, can see the future just like the motorist, but an outside observer (i.e. trader) cannot predict its movement. The only loophole here is that we assume that the motorist will choose his/her optimal path, and it can be calculated. But if the optimal route for the driver will be constantly changing under the influence of external factors (e.g. thousands of motorists like him) he will not be able to predict his specific maneuver at the next intersection. And soon his movement will develop into a particularly perverse form of random rambling.
You might remember there was a thread on Market Four about the smart "Solaris" or the big dumb amoeba? Opinion poll.
You are actively moving towards a repeat of the discussion.
Once again: Your proof is only true in some very common cases. In other cases (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 the addition itself works differently, on what grounds do we speak about universality of axioms and proofs?
I guess it is impossible to convince you of anything. I gave you the DEFINITION of the term "Multiplication" and gave a STRICT MATHEMATICAL PROVIDENCE of one of the statements. You are talking nonsense and adding axiomatics to it. What a mess.
For example, between multiplication of numbers and multiplication of vectors there is only one thing in common: the name of the term of this operation. Then, as a consequence, the properties of vector multiplication coincide with the properties of number multiplication. Perhaps, even for this reason historically, the operation of multiplication of vectors has been called multiplication and not by another word.
Similarly, matrix multiplication and number multiplication have only one thing in common: the name of the term. Historically, the term multiplication has many unrelated definitions. And, as a consequence, the properties of these operations of the same name do not always coincide.
I tell my child this, so that stereotypes like yours are not born in his head.
Where would you go if you were put behind the wheel and given a navigator with a previous route? Backwards?
How would you perform this task: determine the most likely movement of a motorist at the moments when he arrives at intersections. Assuming that his optimal route, with a high probability, is not the shortest distance between the points of departure and destination.
For lack of additional a priori information, only by speed and acceleration, where acceleration is, the car is most likely to move. Thus, approaching an intersection, the car brakes if there is a stoplight or skittles frozen in a stupor, braking is acceleration inverse to speed, respectively we close or overturn.
This logic is justified by the fact that bodies have masses and that space-time is locally continuous. And the market also moves not by a random number generator, but by a superposition of motivations of a bunch of people. And people are motivated by the same reasons, though in different degrees in a timely and reliable manner.
In order to check the SB/not the SB, generate a SB and run on it the simplest trend strategy, without costs, you get another SB, it will be both trends and flat and you can even get misled if the sample is less than 10 000 orders.
Then try it on e.g. EUROBACS, you will get profit without any costs.
Conclusion - you can PREVENT THE MARKET using past data .
I am not comparing a motorist with a trader. I am comparing the motorist to the market. It, the market, can see the future just like the motorist, but an outside observer (i.e. trader) cannot predict its movement. The only loophole here is that we assume that the motorist will choose the optimal path for himself, and it can be calculated. But if the optimal route for the driver will be constantly changing under the influence of external factors (e.g. thousands of motorists like him) he will not be able to predict his specific maneuver at the next intersection. And soon his movement will develop into a particularly perverse form of random rambling.
Here we are.
Well, if I, for example, the pound market, I have a specific goal - not to fall to parity with the euro. And because I know that the dollar has exactly the opposite goal, we'll negotiate with it through the competitors (currencies, metals, energy...).
In other words, the direction we will try to hold.
(But he will have to stop at a petrol station).
Probably impossible to convince you of anything. I gave you the DEFINITION of the term "multiplication" and gave a STRICT MATHEMATICAL proof of one of the statements. You are talking nonsense and adding axiomatics to it. What a mess.
Only one thing is common, for example, between multiplication of numbers and multiplication of vectors: the name of the term of this operation. Then, as a consequence, the properties of vector multiplication coincide with the properties of number multiplication. Perhaps, even for this reason historically, the operation of multiplication of vectors has been called multiplication and not by another word.
Similarly, matrix multiplication and number multiplication have only one thing in common: the name of the term. Historically, the term multiplication has many unrelated definitions. And, as a consequence, the properties of these operations of the same name do not always coincide.
I tell my child this, so that stereotypes like yours are not born in his head.
For lack of additional a priori information, only by speed and acceleration, where acceleration is, the car is most likely to move. Thus, approaching an intersection, the car brakes if there is a stoplight or skittles frozen in a stupor, braking is acceleration inverse to speed, respectively we close or overturn.
This logic is justified by the fact that bodies have masses and that space-time is locally continuous. And the market also moves not by a random number generator, but by a superposition of motivations of a bunch of people. And people are motivated by the same reasons, though in different degrees in a timely and reliable manner.
In order to check the SB/not the SB, generate a SB and run on it the simplest trend strategy, without costs, you get another SB, it will be both trends and flat and you can even get misled if the sample is less than 10 000 orders.
Then try it on e.g. EUROBACS, you will get profit without any costs.
Conclusion - you can PREVENT THE MARKET using past data .
Very interesting. We established long ago that the smaller is the TF, the higher is the noise/signal ratio (we can take this statement as a proved theorem).
It turns out that on a small TF the market practically has no inertia and the processes cannot be compared with Newtonian mechanics, but the higher the TF, the higher the market inertia is and it is as if machines start working :)
What remains to be determined is the transition point, if there is one at all (maybe the transition process is blurred?!).
For lack of further a priori information, just speed and acceleration, which is where the acceleration is most likely to take the car.
Very interesting. We established a long time ago that the lower the TF, the higher the noise/signal ratio (we can take this statement as a proven theorem).