Using artificial intelligence at MTS - page 12
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
There are a lot of philosophers with cockroaches in their heads.
The name "Reshetoff_5f2Gh4w_4t37.mql" would have been much simpler without all the gimmicks with AI. Now try and getusdeur to do a masterclass on the direct application of the philosophy of the unrevealed to the manifested Foreh...
I beg your pardon - I don't want to offend anyone, but REITINGS - or winning championships, are powerless in their REPEATING.
The power is in the OBJECTIVE - repeatable many times a pattern.
A pattern in the form of STABILITY and repeatability and without 300% per quarter - this is already the SUSPECT and to put it as a PRINCIPLE in the algorithm of the EXPERT.
For further information, email me.
Unfortunately I didn't understand the answer. Could you write something specific about the problem already here on the forum? Otherwise what's the point of exchanging emails?
Einstein - would agree with such a statement
Absolutely)))
Email for more information
Unfortunately I didn't understand the answer. Could you write something specific about the problem already here on the forum? Otherwise what's the point of exchanging emails?
There is a point and I can see it.
Usdeur, name at least one primary source to familiarise yourself with it, or did you make it all up yourself?
The main and IMPORTANT source is "DO NOT CREATE A CUMMER".
Try not to label it, but to argue it - can you?
Absolutely)))
Why not?
Can you show any of the above, here = either Einstein or scientists saying that DESCRIPTIONS of the universe, or formulas and calculations, Mathematics, physics, science, scientists, statements, opinions, images, panoramas, algorithms, strategies, stories, statistics... - can BE OBJECTIVE?
If you can't - what does that make it? You do not deny it, and you also do not want to acknowledge the obvious - WHY?
Maybe you should also argue AGAINST it?
Am I not speaking to you with FACTS?
By the way, facts have become facts because PRACTICE has made them so.
And practice is a sin not a CRITERIUM OF TRUTH.
Hence - Einstein - would agree with this statement
Absolutely)))
And why not?
Can you show any of the above, here = either a statement by Einstein, or scientists, stating that DESCRIPTIONS of the universe, or formulas and calculations, Mathematics, physics, science, scientists, statements, opinions, images, panoramas, algorithms, strategies, stories, statistics... - can BE OBJECTIVE?
If the mountain does not go to Mohammed, it does not mean that Mohammed goes to the mountain. (In Russian: If someone does not deny something, it does not mean that he agrees). Unfortunately, Einstein did not get a chance to talk to you.
Absolutely))))
And why not?
Can you show any of the above, here = either a statement by Einstein, or scientists, stating that DESCRIPTIONS of the universe, or formulas and calculations, Mathematics, physics, science, scientists, statements, opinions, images, panoramas, algorithms, strategies, stories, statistics... - can BE OBJECTIVE?
If the mountain does not go to Mohammed, it does not mean that Mohammed goes to the mountain. (In Russian: If someone does not deny something, it does not mean that he agrees). Unfortunately, Einstein did not get a chance to talk to you.
Well, here we are.
That's a relief. ;) - "THE DEFINITIONS OF MATHEMATICS" - remain only clear descriptions of the WORLD - DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWS OF THE WORLD. = DESCRIPTION - even by mathematics, and formulas, will never be objective.Clarity - like clarity, it is one of the STATEMENTS of TUMANITY. Besides - not of the whole Universe, but only a part of it .... -(I.E. - SUBJECT - here's the grandmother and Jury's Day.... ).
THEN also Einstein's formulas - will never be objective. And he knew it - but fashion and the DOGMAS of the crowd - WILL WIN... AND THAT'S WHY, .... and not ONLY because ..... descriptions are changing and science is moving forward - although we don't know that either (whether forward...).
It means that we have to STUDY - to distinguish the particular, partial from the WHOLE, the OBJECTIVE.
Then we will be more UNITED than a divided World - into subjects,
which also HAVE a FOCUS in the form of a nebula. ;)
Clarity is one of the STATES of mists. Besides, it is not the whole Universe, but only a part of it ..... - (I.E. - SUBJECT - that's grandma and Jury's day.... ).
What kind of nonsense is this? Since when is it enough to be a part of the Universe in order to become a subject? Study the material (at least Diamath, for example, or Hegel and Kant read; by the way, "Dialectics of Nature" by Engels or "Philosophical Notebooks" by Lenin will do), and then find yourself some cozy philosophical forum and post there your ingenious truths without a drop of practical use till you are blue in the face. In a dozen or so posts I have heard from you only some vague self-made fix ideas that suspiciously resemble a mixture of Buddhism, Hinduism and who knows what else, and written in a highly untidy manner, so untidy that in fact there is nothing to object to for lack of clarity.
As for mathematics itself, it is simply a set of extreme generalizations about the properties of material objects. Mathematics does not describe the world as directly as physics, chemistry, etc. It is only a tool to describe the world - and a very effective one. The model of natural numbers, for example, continues to amaze not only professional mathematicians.
And there are several mathematicians, too: it all depends on the system of axioms adopted by a particular model of mathematics. Axioms are rather subtle (Cermelo, Cantor) and still do not disprove truths like "two times two is four", but can only lead to other conclusions when applied to infinite sets. It is only in this sense that mathematics may be considered a kind of particular phenomenon, not a whole. But still by no means subjective.