Theorem on the presence of memory in random sequences - page 21
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
A similar advisor was known about 10-15 years ago, was written by Roche and published on the Alpari forum. It was almost a copy. There were two parameters with periods, here there is one, and the second is obtained by multiplying the first by 2.
This Reshetov is an enriched plagiarist. He steals other people's codes and removes parameters so he doesn't get caught. Good, at least you are keeping a close eye on it and controlling the situation. The "scientific" community won't forget you for three days. Take a pie from the shelf - you have honestly earned it. You have brought an impudent plagiarist to light, despite all the tricks on his part.
This once again confirms the great necessity of writing a cart on Reshetov from the academy of "sciences" to the Hague tribunal.
It's funny, it was the "Memory Theorem for Random Sequences" and it rudimentary to the Momentum Advisor on Quotes.
Well, all brilliant things are simple.
Well, that's a simple thing, isn't it?
Do you really believe that "memory" and "random sequences" are compatible? I think they're mutually exclusive.
Here comes the docent.
Salom, my good man! How's the wife? How are the children? How are the rams? How are the children of the sheep?
So be it, I'll have to give a lecture on the school theorist for the ardent representatives of "science" who rely on faith rather than conventional terminology.
Suppose we have a sequence of random variables:
x1, x2, ... xn
If for all i and j the equality is true:
p(xi) = p(xj | xi)
then the sequence has no memory.
Otherwise possesses.
Here comes the docent.
Salom, my good man! How's the wife? How are the children? How are the rams? How are the children of the sheep?
So be it, I'll have to give a lecture on the school theorist for the ardent representatives of "science" who rely on faith rather than conventional terminology.
Suppose we have a sequence of random variables:
x1, x2, ... xn
If for all i and j the equality is true:
p(xi) = p(xj | xi)
then the sequence has no memory.
Otherwise possesses.
1. Thanks, it's OK.
2. Hence, otherwise, there is a regularity, which contradicts the original premise. The circle is closed. Conclusion: either the initial assumption or the final result is wrong.
Hence, otherwise, there is a pattern, which contradicts the original premise. The circle is closed. The conclusion is that either the original premise or the final result is not true.
Assistant Professor, probability theory is the theory of patterns of random variables.
Assistant Professor, probability theory is the theory of patterns of random variables.
Probability theory is the theory of VARIABILITY, not patterns. If patterns, then patterns of probabilities, but not of phenomena.
Probability theory is the theory of VARIABILITY, not patterns. If patterns, then patterns of probabilities, but not of phenomena.
I see Dimitri you and Yuri are becoming equally articulate - in most cases you can't exactly tell if it's support or ridicule.
Assistant Professor, probability theory is the theory of patterns of random variables.