Theorem on the presence of memory in random sequences - page 3

New comment
 
Did the man write the theorem? Rather, he quoted it in his own way ))

It is human nature not to live in obscurity and tries to explain everything. Even the unexplainable. For example, the probability of an event. The past is very, very well explained and adjusted to the current delusions in the arsenal of "science". Also any event with pre-determined initial data lends itself very well to prediction. Especially if they are few in number. For example, take that ill-fated rubik's cube be damned... :-D Suppose we know which edge the cube lies on, its shape and weight distribution are perfect, friction forces and the rest are neglected and we assume that it is always thrown out equally and with the same force. Then it is safe to say that, for example, if it is rolled out of the face of 1, let 4 fall out. So we are plunged into reality. What is it? Oh, what a pity - the cube is not perfect, it is always thrown as it fits, with varying force, and plus all this there are also different forces such as friction force of attraction and others. Bottom line? Unpredictable! And why the hell tell me to spend my precious time on this and transfer it to any theories and put it in the numbers? Waste of time!!!
We were talking about a simple six-sided cube. Now imagine the currency market. How many inputs do you think should be considered in this case? I would not even try to state it, but it is very, very much! You simply will not be able to take them all into account! The probability here tends towards zero!!! What memory? What are you talking about? Get it out of your head! Don't mess with it!!! Don't litter your attic with unnecessary junk!!!
Although maybe it's not quite like that - you can calculate it all. But not like this. Not on any story...
Why, with all that said, aren't you making money? With all the obviousness of the market? You've been "miscalculated". They put that miscalculation in your head. You've been given the same raw data. In fact, everything is much simpler - there are several basic data points like greed, insecurity, fear (losses). You have that. In addition to knowing your fears, they also have money and speed. While you are analysing history, modelling you are being made by the simplest of fast algorithms!
 
Reshetov:

If not convinced, the text of the theorem is not secret and is in the attached archive. Try to find errors in it.

you have proved that with these 3 values and with these rules there will be a plus. With other values (e.g. 2,3,2) there will be a minus. You don't know beforehand what the three values will be)) you only know 2. This is what you have to calculate from.
 

>>>If the analysis of pre-history of random sequences at one depth gives zero mathematical expectation, it doesn't mean that the analysis of pre-history at another depth will give the same expectation.

The probability of zero expectation for a random sequence tends to 0. Expectation is nothing but an average value for a sequence of random numbers of equal weight.

what is the meaning of the term "backstory analysis"?

Formalise the statement of the theorem in mat language rather than a loose understanding of the terms, then the "theorem" as such will cease to exist.

>>>To prove the existence of memory in a random sequence, you need to analyse it to its full depth.

Sounds like the classic "cognition of infinity requires infinite time..." again "analysis" to "depth". no proof is possible.

Take the thermonuclear reaction, an exemplary source of random variables. There is no "memory" whatsoever. Nature is structured in a probabilistic way, the market is also subject to probabilistic processes.

So it is down to the anecdotes:

- Why doesn't lightning strike the same place twice?

- Nature has a memory...

And the fact that other processes exist and must be taken into account (and not only based on tervers and combinatorics) does not matter ...

IMHO.

 
elugovoy:

Take the fusion reaction, a representative source of random variables. There is no "memory" whatsoever. Nature is structured in a probabilistic way, the market is also subject to probabilistic processes.

So it is down to the anecdotes:

- Why doesn't lightning strike the same place twice?

- Nature has a memory...

And the fact that other processes exist and must be taken into account (and not only based on tervers and combinatorics) does not matter ...

IMHO.

Randomness and probability are invented by people for cases where they do not know the laws or necessary data for analysis. They don't exist in nature))

A simple example, let's have an automaton that gives out 1 in even milliseconds and 0 in odd ones. We can run it at any time. If we have no millisecond precision clock, or no opportunity to run the machine with such precision, then for us the output of the machine is random with probabilities 0.5/0.5, although it is based on a deterministic process. So random is a mathematical abstraction for the prediction in conditions of incomplete knowledge about the processes or lack of data needed for prediction.

"God does not roll the dice", as Einstein said. There is no randomness - there is insufficient knowledge or data

 
Avals:

Randomness and probability are invented by people for cases where they do not know the laws or the necessary data to analyse them. They do not exist in nature))

A simple example is to have an automaton that gives a 1 in an even millisecond and a 0 in an odd millisecond. We can run it at any time. If we have no millisecond precision clock, or no opportunity to run the machine with such precision, then for us the output of the machine is random with probabilities 0.5/0.5, although the basis is a deterministic process. So, randomness is a mathematical abstraction for the prediction in conditions of incomplete knowledge of the processes or lack of data needed for prediction.

"God does not roll the dice" as Einstein put it. There is no such thing as chance - there is insufficient knowledge or data

"One cannot grasp the immensity" K. Prutkov

"The one thing my long life has taught me is that all ourscience is primitive and childishly naive in the face of reality, and yet it is the most valuable thing we have..." A. Einstein.

Here we go... I don't have oscilloscope (again, artificially created), which can easily display 0-1 at 1 kHz (and I don't know exactly how it works).

Science is there to 'predict' events/development of life, i.e. nature.

Try with all the knowledge of modern genetic engineering (allowing human cloning nowadays) to determine the sex of an unborn child from its parents before conception. So much for 0.5/0.5... And that's nature.

I'm not against theories, but clearly stated... there is nothing more practical than a well stated theory.

 
Avals:

Randomness and probability are invented by people for cases where they do not know the laws or the data they need to analyse. They do not exist in nature))

A simple example is to have an automaton that gives a 1 in an even millisecond and a 0 in an odd millisecond. We can run it at any time. If we have no millisecond precision clock, or no opportunity to run the machine with such precision, then for us the output of the machine is random with probabilities 0.5/0.5, although it is based on a deterministic process. So, randomness is a mathematical abstraction for the forecast with incomplete knowledge about the processes or lack of data needed for the forecast.

"God does not roll the dice", as Einstein said. There is no such thing as chance - there is insufficient knowledge or data

Yeah, but having only one history of automata turning on does not make any sense from it, just as from the history of a coin toss. Unknowable laws are one thing, data is another.

* * *

Perhaps it is time to introduce a new diagnosis into psychiatry - inventing methods of winning at dice, roulette, etc., etc.

 
Integer:

Yeah, except that having one story of the machine turning on doesn't make any sense, just like the story of flipping a coin.

Why? What if you want to find out the probability of tails by experience, without knowing any theory? Do a simulation of a few million, make sure it tends to 50%, and you don't need any laws. This is the basis of Monte Carlo Tree Search algorithms that are used in science, e.g. in game theory.
 
Stasikusssss:
Why? What if you want to find out by experience, without knowing any theory, the probability of tails? Do a few million simulations, make sure it's close to 50%, and you don't need any laws. It's based on Monte Carlo Tree Search algorithms that are used in science, like game theory.
You are all confused here. Determining the probability by experience is quite different from predicting on the basis of the history of flipping a coin.
 

And that's exactly what I was saying about probability determination (I thought you were saying that it doesn't make any practical sense at all),

that's what you said.

 
Stasikusssss:
Why? What if you want to find out by experience, without knowing any theory, the probability of tails? Do a few million simulations, make sure it's close to 50%, and you don't need any laws. That's the basis of the Monte Carlo Tree Search algorithms that are used in science, like in game theory.
If a coin is struck with a hammer from one side, the result will be different from 50/50, so you can measure the convexity of the coin, and recalculating it through the diameter and even convert this convexity into absolute values.
12345678910...43
New comment