Theorem on the presence of memory in random sequences - page 33

New comment
 
Alexander Antoshkin:
well that's fine)))
It is quite possible that the sequence of the emergence of expressive means in the process of the formation of human languages is not too different from this sequence. In any case, Paul's idea of the types of hypotactic formations can be generalised so as to include here also the emphatically nominative sentences that are preserved in German proverbs and which, from a purely phenomenological point of view, we characterise as correlative sentences.

Very interesting. Thank you for the information.

However, it is not clear what exactly happened, as there are rumours that a lab technician faked Kammerer's experiments in order to frame him?

However, there was even a film made on the subject:


 
Poor Karl Jung, they are all over his idea of synchronicity. Jung's synchronicity relates exclusively to psychological experiences, not events, and certainly does not refute the theory of probability in any way.
 
Dmitry Fedoseev:
Poor Carl Jung, they are tearing down his idea of synchronicity in every way. Jung's synchronicity has to do only with psychological experiences, not events, and moreover does not refute the probability theory in any way.
Dima, Reshetov's robot works publicly on the demo, rez in the plus, it and the theorem are published. Time will judge who is who. Your flooding is really making it hard to read. Spare the thread and other users from it.
 
bs35:
Dima, Reshetov's robot publicly works on the demo, rez in the plus, he and the theorem are published. Time will judge who is who. Your flooding is really getting in the way of reading. Spare the thread and other users from it.

So what if the robot works? It has nothing to do with the theorem. The theorem was and still is nonsense.

What can you read here that you can understand if you just asked a question about Kover's paradox? What do you understand here?

 
Dmitry Fedoseev:


What can you read here that you can understand if you just asked a question about the Kover paradox? What do you understand here?

Don't blame the mirror when you're wrong © Kozma Prutkov.

Dimitri, you also asked a question about the Coover paradox. And now, you are publicly trying to accuse the other of doing what you yourself have done as well as he did.

 
Yury Reshetov:

Don't blame the mirror if you can't see straight © Kozma Prutkov

Dimitri, you also asked a question about the Kover paradox. And now you're publicly trying to accuse someone else of doing what you did, just like he did.

Yuri, that's a pretty low blow. The level of stale dumping of your mind is staggering. Is everything in there a hell of a tangle? Are you even able to tell the difference? At least, you can distinguish between warm and cold, dark and light yet?

So the interested onlookers don't have to look it up, here's the Kovera thread.

Yuri, if you answered a question, it doesn't mean you were asked it.

 
Dmitry Fedoseev:

Yuri, you have fallen quite low. The stale level of your mind's dump is staggering. Is everything in there a hell of a tangle? Are you even able to tell the difference? At least, you can tell the difference between hot and cold, dark and light yet?

So the interested onlookers don't have to look it up, here's the Kovera thread.

Yuri, if you answered a question, it doesn't mean you were asked it.

I'm sorry, I didn't go back to that thread after your question and I missed your answer.

My bad, I stand corrected.

 
Very interesting. Thank you for the information. <br / translate="no">
The Accelerator Oscillator indicator is used, it takes 4 values from bars: Shift, Shift+7, Shift+14, Shift+21. Each of the indicator values is multiplied by its weight obtained as (100-x(n)), where x(n) is the optimized variable x1, x2, x3. After multiplication, the values are summed and the value at the output of the perseptron is obtained. If the value at the output of the perseptron is greater than zero, it opens a buy, if the value is less than zero, it opens a sell.
Your theorem was proven a long time ago: in any case, even in ticks, in anytrading the logic of the EA is the same, analysis - deduction - solution. If the top (3) of all gathered strategies is common, then why don't you try an idea with a regular octagon in its base?
//----------------------------------------------
sorry sorry, servodex is glitchy, i can't put the picture in
Files:
b19.png  16 kb
8b.png  144 kb
 
Yuri, you have fallen quite low. The stale level of your mind's dump is staggering. Is everything in there a hell of a tangle? Are you even able to tell the difference? Can you at least distinguish between warm and cold, dark and light yet? <br / translate="no">
And what should onlookers be looking for? If every half an hour you force a child to go potty, it increases the probability that his trousers will stay dry.
This is, as you have already guessed, probabilistic logic.
 
Alexander Antoshkin:
What is there for onlookers to look for? If you force a child to go potty every half hour, there is an increased likelihood that their trousers will stay dry.
This is, as you have already guessed, probabilistic logic.
And you know the paradox that if you arrive too early for a meeting, you are more likely to be late?
1...262728293031323334353637383940...43
New comment