Algorithm Optimisation Championship. - page 99
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
As I understand it, you will combine 255 similar scraps of analytical functions into a single equation. The task is to find its maxima in the minimum number of calls to the FF.
All you need to know is range, step, number of parameters.
I don't think that my personal mathematical surrealism is needed here) I will accept your formulas .
Not really. There will be some simple functions of f(x1, x2) kind in the FF, but our referee will generate a unique sequence of calls to these functions and a sequence of parameters. Inside we get something incomprehensible, a really complex interweaving of dependencies between parameters and functions. I'm not even trying to imagine how complicated the thing will end up being, and inside a black box at that.
But it is true that it is important to know the range of parameters, the pitch, and the number of parameters - these characteristics can be obtained in the imported FF function, example page earlier.
No one has asked for your opinion in this thread. In fact, they asked you not to express it.
Who exactly was asked?
Why do you refer to yourself in the plural?
How do you feel?
All good?
//-----------------------------------
I'm even very interested in Andrei's posts, the topic becomes interesting to say the least.
Who exactly were you asking for?
Why do you refer to yourself in the plural?
How are you feeling?
Are you OK?
I'm even very interested in Andrew's posts, the topic is becoming at least interesting.
The forum rules have become selective.
Here https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/87536/page93--Andrey Dik also insulted one of the forum members -- the moderators did not react at all.
Today there is a relapse - again no reaction.
We are watching -- intrigue how it will end.
The forum rules have become selective.
Here https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/87536/page93--Andrey Dik also insulted one of the forum members -- the moderators did not react at all.
Today there is a relapse - again no reaction.
We are watching -- intrigue how it will end.
Go complain to Sportlotto. Tell them how you're being abused here and won't listen.
"It's better to be a good person who "swears with foul language" than a quiet, well-mannered creature" by F.G. Ranevskaya.
Go complain to Sportlotto. Tell them how you're insulted here and don't want to listen.
Don't poke, you won't grow teeth.
I personally don't give a shit about your insults -- I pass any insults by indifferently.
The fact that the forum has become selective in its rules -- and the insults have ceased to be suppressed, at least selectively -- that's bad.
I'm not the only one you insult -- and you insult members of the forum with enviable regularity and, as we can see in practice, with impunity.
"It is better to be a good person who "swears in foul language" than a quiet, mannered creature" F.G. Ranevskaya.
Ranevskaya wasn't talking about your case here -- read yourself and you'll understand.
Don't poke, you won't grow teeth.
I personally don't give a shit about your insults -- I pass any insults by indifferently.
The fact that the forum has become selective in its rules -- and the insults have ceased to be suppressed, at least selectively -- that's bad.
I'm not the only one you insult -- and you insult with enviable regularity and, as we can see in practice, with impunity.
So are you now making claims against the forum administration? In your complaint to Sportloto not forget to indicate this point too - admins and moderators are outrageous, they are breaking the law, etc.
About zubotochin: you have not given me your address so far, and look for you on planet Earth I have no leisure.
Not exactly. There will be some simple functions like f(x1, x2) in the FF, but our referee will generate a unique sequence of calls to these functions and a sequence of parameters. Inside we get something incomprehensible, a really complex interweaving of dependencies between parameters and functions. I'm not even trying to imagine how complicated the thing will end up being, and inside a black box at that.
But it is true that it is important to know the range of parameters, the pitch, and the number of parameters - these characteristics can be obtained in the imported FF function, example page earlier.
Well, when you put up the library with the FF, there's also an example of these functions in it... By looking at them, I will imagine what the final version of the FF might be like, after it has been modified by the ref.
About the chosen step of 0.0000000000000001, it seems to me that it is unfortunate.
The reason is that it is on the edge of the computer's counting capabilities, which will have to perform complex and varied mathematical operations with numbers that differ from each other by such a small amount... However there would be unpredictable errors in the calculations...
1. Well, when you put up the library with the FF, there will be an example of these functions in it... By looking at them, I will imagine what the final version of the FF might be, after it has been modified by the ref.
2. About the chosen step 0.0000000000000001, it seems to me that it is unfortunate.
The reason is that it is on the edge of the computer's counting capabilities, which will have to perform complex and varied mathematical operations with numbers that differ from each other by such a small amount... However there would be unpredictable errors in the calculations...
1. Today.
2. You asked for minimum constraints, and this is the smallest step possible. If there can be any problems, it's in the participant's algorithm, not the FF's. This means that any critical errors due to the fault of the algorithm will be cause for disqualification of the participant.