Theorem on the presence of memory in random sequences - page 14
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
The trailer contains another revision of the memory theorem, but this time:
There may be inaccuracies in the text. But it is published for the purpose, so that those who know about theorems may point out these very inaccuracies.
The trailer contains another revision of the memory theorem, but this time:
There may be inaccuracies in the text. But it is published for the purpose, so that those who know about theorems may point out these very inaccuracies.
There are still no rules for the game?
I assumed that the 'pundits' were still a long way off. They will be studying. But no, here we are.)
I'm studying the theorem.)
But "scientists" have no time, they have to check in, run around and describe/mark all the corners.)
I assumed that the 'pundits' were still a long way off. They will be studying. But no, here we are.)
I'm studying the theorem.)
But "scientists" have no time, they need to check in, run around, and describe/mark all the angles.)
And how? The MO of half a row equals the MO of the other half of a row? We have the MO of Yuri can only calculate for an infinite series. What does this have to do with memory? Also Yuri has no relation between frequency and probability. Figli, masterpiece-mathematician, but everywhere his name, in general it is right that such masterpieces mark themselves.
The "learned men" are clowns here, not learned men. Yuri writes nonsense on purpose so that there is no substantive conversation. And you do not understand, but you nod. Which one of you would dare to write these special rules of the dice game? The winning of the cube does not come from this so-called memory you call it, but from a variable bet, the higher the probability of winning (more values are bet on), the higher the bet (obviously).
And about all sorts of banter, maybe you should, go ahead and banter, you've already bantered yourself with the very title of the topic.
You thinkthat if something is written in a crooked language (like scientific), then it's cool?
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
as far as i understood the author was betting on a trend
Very interesting, where does the cube trend? When it rolls over the edge or when it's spinning on top? What if, instead of numbers, you draw flowers on the cube? Then it would probably be a flat.
What if you draw flowers instead of numbers on the cube? Then it would probably be a flat.
It should be clarified in the article that all values of the series are measurable, pairwise comparable and rankable. Otherwise "scientists" will be sure to get to the bottom of that, that the sequence can be of flowers. But by flowers it is impossible to determine which of them is maximum, which is average and which is minimum, because to taste and colour there is no comrade, and therefore we will get relativism.
Digging up poles is a clear sign of "scholarship".