Theorem on the presence of memory in random sequences - page 40
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
Sorry, I have not thoroughly examined their cupboards for skeletons. In any case, nothing is taken on faith here, so names are irrelevant.
Of course, everyone can be wrong sometimes...
But I hope you will not deny their (each of them) significant contribution to science?
Of course, everyone can be wrong sometimes...
But I hope you will not deny their (each of them) significant contribution to science?
I wouldn't.
Did any of them know how to win a coin toss?
I won't.
Did any of them know how to win at orchestra?
You're getting a little hung up on the orchard... --- break;
Well, if you won't deny it, I hope their opinion on TV might be of interest to you?
you're obsessing over the eagle... --- break;
Well if you won't deny it, I hope their opinion on TV might be of interest to you?
Yeah. Purely cultural and historical.
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/70676#comment_2153088
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/70676#comment_2153089
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/70676#comment_2153093
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/70676#comment_2153094
The essence of the theorem is that if analysis of pre-history of random sequences at one depth gives zero mathematical expectation, it does not mean that analysis of pre-history at another depth gives the same expectation.
Simply put, to prove that a random sequence has a memory, you need to analyse it to its full depth.
I agree.
I still do not understand why it is so smoky and dusty here...
In my opinion, the topic of this thread does not correspond to the content of the subject matter promoted by the author. If I understood correctly, as if the central idea of the narrative is that no part of the total amount of data that has the possibility of practical processing, can not say for itself that the data taken in its entirety is random. If the above theorem is voiced in this way, everything falls into place (like it should not cause a persistent vomit reflex from incomprehensible entities in most people's trading).
Indirectly one can make very interesting conclusions about the possibility of being among the "lucky 1%" of traders. Although, such conclusions can be drawn on the basis of empirical data obtained as a result of experiments in the tester, but here, as usual, one may not come to such conclusions.
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/70676#comment_2153088
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/70676#comment_2153089
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/70676#comment_2153093
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/70676#comment_2153094
I agree.
I still don't understand why it's so smoky and dusty in here...
In my opinion, the topic of the thread does not correspond to the content of the point being promoted by the author. If I understood correctly, as if the central idea of the narrative is that no part of the total amount of data, which has the possibility of practical processing, can not say for itself that the data taken in its entirety is random. If the above theorem is voiced in this way, everything falls into place (like it should not cause a persistent vomit reflex from incomprehensible entities in the majority of people).
Indirectly one can make very interesting conclusions about the possibility of being among the "lucky 1%" of traders. Although, such conclusions can be drawn on the basis of empirical data obtained as a result of experiments in the tester, but here, as usual, one may not come to such conclusions.