Theorem on the presence of memory in random sequences - page 22
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
Associate Professor, probability theory is the theory of patterns of random variables.
Random variables have regularities in separate segments, and the beginning and extent of these regularities are also random.
And in forex, no one can tell when they start and when they end.
That's right! Don't teach the "scientists". How can there be regularities in probabilities? This is all the machinations of "pseudo-science" in the form of "pseudo-theorems" and "pseudo-laws".
Random variables have regularities in separate segments, and the beginning and extent of these regularities are also random.
And in forex, no one can tell when they start and when they end.
I agree, this refers to general regularities of random variables, e.g. in the case of gas regularities. The memory claim refers to a private pattern, which needs to be proven. But it's unlikely to be rigorously proven.
What is there to prove?
If there is a function i = f(j) such that p(xi) ≠ p(xj | xi), it is enough and sufficient to give such a function and substitute it in the inequality to prove the presence of memory in the sequence of random variables: x1, x2, ..., xn.
However, for some "scientists" (let's not point the finger) such proofs are unprovable, as they contradict their personal worldview.
Random variables have regularities in separate segments, and the beginning and extent of these regularities are also random.
And in forex, no one can tell when they start and when they end.
Everything is 100% correct, only just the opposite - all theoretical and mathematical statistics are based on the law of large numbers.
Don't get into an argument with "scientists" lest you be called a layman. Where do "laws" come from when we are talking about some particular cases as random coincidences?
These are not regularities but coincidences. There is no relationship between random phenomena except for coincidences due to probabilities.
...
So be it, I'll have to give a lecture on the school theorist to the ardent spokesmen for "science" who rely on faith rather than conventional terminology.
What is there to prove?
If there is a function i = f(j) such that p(xi) ≠ p(xj | xi), then it is only necessary and sufficient to quote such a function to prove the absence of memory in the sequence of random variables: x1, x2, ..., xn.
However, for some "scientists" (let's not point the finger) such proofs are unprovable, as they contradict their personal worldview.
You have to prove the presence of memory, not its absence.
Uh-huh. Got it wrong and got it mixed up.
That there is no memory is obvious from the definition of a random sequence of numbers or phenomena.
Where do we poor dilettantes get off. After all, "scientific" knowledge is available only to a select few who hang out at academies and have bought, or bought through bribes, "scientific" degrees. After all, any opinion made by a mere mortal is "false" by default, if it contradicts the personal opinion of a "scientist".