Theorem on the presence of memory in random sequences - page 4
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
Gentlemen speculators, I think you have abandoned this thread in vain.
Here, despite the fierce attacks of the proponents of probability theory, the author of the topic cannot be denied the fairness of his conclusions.
Let's observe together. The author argues that.
1. If x 2 > x 1, then bet on x 3 < x 2
2. If x 2 < x 1, then bet on x 3 > x 2
Assume that x1 and x2 are extremes on the price chart.
Try to argue or better just agree with the author's conclusions.
Good luck everyone!))
Gentlemen speculators, I think you have abandoned this thread in vain.
Here, despite the fierce attacks of the proponents of probability theory, the author of the topic cannot be denied the fairness of his conclusions.
Let's observe together. The author argues that.
1. If x 2 > x 1, then bet on x 3 < x 2
2. If x 2 < x 1, then bet on x 3 > x 2
Assume that x1 and x2 are extremes on the price chart.
Try to argue or better just agree with the author's conclusions.
Good luck everyone!))
Who the hell needs to stare at a chart? It's much easier to bullshit without looking and cast aspersions on the author, like: smart guy, bring him to the nail. There are many of them, but there is only one author. So they "prove" by number, not by skill. It is easier that way.
...
Here, despite the vehement attacks of the proponents of probability theory, the author of the topic cannot be denied the validity of his conclusions.
...
Sorry, but probability theory is not a religion, it is science.
Science. Science?
Please clarify what science is.
Sorry, but probability theory is not a religion, but a science.
It is still at the level of religion, not science, as the axiomatics seems to be there, but there is no definition of probability yet. The only definition given by Kolmogorov is a special case, since it is extended only to equiprobable cases. And no one has seen them in nature yet. And numerous complaints that Kolmogorov's axiomatics is "weak", i.e. does not apply to infinite sets, can also be heard from all sides.
So it turns out that the theory seems to exist, but what it is about is not quite clear yet.
Sorry, but probability theory is not a religion, it's a science.
It's more like a religion.
Oooh, and everyone so actively claims to be an atheist.
You don't really know what you're talking about.
Well, what can you do, go on enjoying yourself if you like it so much. But just answer yourself honestly, I really don't know how it's possible - are you sure you're not stumbling into a wall of your own incomprehension... in the face of emptiness...
Well, keep inventing ways to win at ornate games. Whatever the child needs.