Algorithm Optimisation Championship. - page 48
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
Yeah got me thinking. I don't understand the difference between looking for solutions of equation 34a+43b+16c+30d+23e=6268; and looking for minimum MathAbs(34a+43b+16c+30d+23e-6268);
MathAbs(34a+43b+16c+30d+23e-6268)=0 when the roots a, b, c, d, e of the original equation are found. Or am I what ? Fundamentally stupid?
Maybe the exact value is unknown. All sets of parameters that don't give the exact value will be discarded, as a result you may not find the answer at all, the exact one is not found, and all the others are discarded. You have to pick the best results out of all the experiments. Even if the exact one is not there, at least there will be something.
It is also possible to look for an extremum - the highest point and the neighboring ones lower, or vice versa, but it is difficult. Seeking minimum/maximum is cheap and serioo, it is enough for optimization purposes.
1. this has already been mentioned. Participants will not know what is inside the FF. Neither will the jury. The MQ administrator will generate the FF and compile the library with the FF and pass it on to the championship.
2. How the function is described inside is irrelevant. You can only get the value of the FF by passing an array of numbers (optimisable parameters) into it:
A competitor passes an array of numbers to some black box . The black box calculates the value of some function and passes this value to the participant. Participant's algorithm keeps searching for an extremum with due regard for the value. After a number of calls to the black box, the participant says: all, here is the extremum. Whoever will access the black box less and whose extremum will be the most extreme wins?
Is it so?
A participant sends an array of numbers to a black box. The black box calculates the value of some function and passes this value to the participant. The participant's algorithm continues to search for an extremum, taking into account the value obtained. After a number of calls to the black box, the participant says: all, here is the extremum. The winner is the one who will address the black box less frequently and whose extremum will be more extreme?
Is it so?
Yes, that's right.
If you do not know what the Championship is about, you may ask Abolk, judging by the last post he read everything about it very carefully.
This is the forum for trading, automated trading systems and testing of trading strategies
The Championship of Optimization Algorithms.
Andrey F. Zelinsky, 2016.06.20 14:55
he said from the beginning that in case of a cash prize -- he refuses to participate or his participation is out of the ranking.
but in any competition, the strongest wins -- and you are now saying that the weakest player should have a chance to win (how is that?).
It is clear that in school, students participate in the Olympiad, and the teacher does not.
But the main author did not take the role of teaching someone on this topic -- on the contrary, he just said -- I posted the books, told as much as I could, sort it out, if you do not like it, go to the garden, you can all at once, or one by one -- if I am alone, I will be the happiest and unbeaten.
If he refuses, it means the last place, he has lost. ))
Abolk, bring in...
No,Andrey Dik is weak for such decisions
Abolk, judging by the last post, he has read all about the championship very carefully, and understands perfectly well what and how to do.
If he refuses, it means the last place, lost. ))
Abolk, judging by the last post, he has read all about the championship very carefully, and understands perfectly well what and how to do.
If he refuses, it means the last place, lost. ))
He is watching very carefully, he listens to every word I say... But I do not know why?
Let him learn how to behave first.
He's chosen a bad strategy, a losing one from the start.