Quantum trading system - page 36
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
Looks like the argument between the romantic and the surly practitioner is doomed from the start. I'm out of here.
If you have nowhere to spend the time you waste inventing theories, that's your problem. You are like alchemists. In time you will realise how foolish you were in trying to predict the future.
To make a profit on our market, you need systems that make a profit from certain situations.
For example in the non-trend markets, it is better to use pips. They gather a lot of profits. In trend markets, it's better to trade along the trend. That is all. You do not have to invent anything. It is very simple. You have to use it. Don't make up some quantum theories that have nothing to do with economics.
What makes you so sure that the laws of quantum physics do not apply? The laws of elementary physics-mechanics apply: the law of counteraction (in non-trend markets) and the law of inertia (in trend markets). By the way, price movements are very similar to quantum processes: levels, oscillations, transitions from level to level.
It is the same with quantum physics as with religion and esotericism; one mentions it lightly and the devil dances of "scientific" sceptics, confined to a one-sided reality, begin.
I've stopped reading all sorts of rubbish from representatives of "cutting-edge science" on the pages of this particular thread. I'm just tired of this chatter, well, as long as you can - not a single reasonable argument, continuous name-calling. (Of course, I don't claim to read myself, it's not customary here, all writers). :о)
In my spare time I started reading those who really have something to say, who are interesting to read :o) And what does it turn out? And it turns out that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (exactly what has been written about here) is derived from Fourier transform theory for several variables. No atoms (this is for the especially scientific underlined), nothing like that. Not to mention that this principle applies equally to similarity transformations.
It turns out that the Fourier transform, along with Hilbert spaces, are "natural mathematical images for quantum systems", literally verbatim. No no, this does not mean that I am going to say that I have already built such a system. It's a bit more complicated than that. :о)))
The qualitative formulation of this principle is very simple - "Any observation perturbs the observed system". So what? It doesn't apply to forex?
By the way, I gave you this link above but nobody apparently paid attention to it:
http://aspirant.phys.msu.ru/special_courses/ktfven/02.htm
It's "Introduction to quantum theory of random processes". I didn't give it for nothing .... :о)
I also found out for myself that quantum approaches are used in medicine, biology, chemistry, etc. Practically everywhere. Our scientific people - you will re-read after some time all "scientificity", on which you were capable. But never mind - have a pleasant reading.
Each of us gets offended when they litter his branch. And here we're making a big deal out of it. We have called each other names many times, spent time and told in detail about psychotherapists, psychos, daughters, mice, showed where to stick the cord to stubborn experimenter. Colleagues, maybe that's enough? Though, it is unlikely you will hear it...
>> Good luck
Good luck to you too, your right not to believe.
A man lives as he thinks (c) One can only think of good things).
Tell me you can't divide by zero.)
Concerning quantum theory, first there was light carrying energy, then life began, and it was well noted by colleagues that "Any observation perturbs the observed system".
And please note that quantum physics is at the beginning of its development,and many scientists and computers are trying to calculate unrealistically complex examples to discover something new in this science.
Therefore it is silly to say the words "schizophrenia" about quantum theory which describes processes in life much better.
>> I wish I had lost touch with my teacher, he would have been here)) he discovered a lot in his time, and said that there is more to discover.
That is why it is silly to say the words "schizophrenia" about quantum theory, which is much better at describing processes in life.
Why are you so blatantly distorting?
"Schizophrenia" in my presentation characterized not the quantum theory, but a person (not one of those who took part in discussion in this thread), who having grasped that incontestable fact that all matter consists of nucleons and electrons around them, suddenly has "genius insight" that an ordinary loaf of bread and, consequently, its baking process can be described using quantum mechanics apparatus.
Of course, you and I understand that this is an example of an insignificant property of a particular object in this context, and we immediately highlight the Significant feature of a good loaf - the baking temperature and the skill of the baker. However, the detractors (not from our forum) will immediately say that "who decided that this is significant and that this, on the contrary, is not? But we will not tell them that our intuition, based on our knowledge, allows us to draw such conclusions, because THEY will say that we could simply be wrong and the opposite is true!
And they would be right - we are all wrong. It's just that some less often and some more often. And there is also a scalar that allows estimating with a certain share of certainty a significance of this or that statement - it is the volume of accumulated knowledge of a person making the given statement.
Why so openly twist your words?
Dear friend, stop arguing and make an analogy, if Fourier series are used in prognosis, what is worse than quantum approach, where these series are a special case.
Of course we all make mistakes, especially when we go by the "gut feeling" method, help us to "poke" more productively in this direction, using your knowledge, we will be grateful).
Neutron, I share your sober position, but at the same time I understand the nature of the periodic "revolutionary" theses on the forum regarding the market model - it is in the absence of this model. As long as there is no adequate market model, various hypotheses will appear, including not always correct ones. We should only help their authors: well done, thanks for your courage! About two years ago I also said here that there is some similarity between lots and a collective of quantum-mechanical particles - they make spontaneous transitions in a flat and can suddenly make a friendly (stimulated) caving-in type transition. But then I became convinced of the nonsense of this analogy - there are no steady levels, no absolutes, no constant relations; the trand has nothing like physics at all, much less quantum physics.
The lack of a market model is a consequence of the absence of a scientific concept of the interaction of information and matter. This concept could be the basis of unification of the science of animate and inanimate nature.
I, too, am against attempts to replace conscientious research with subjectivist-esoteric delusions( by the way, I would classifygrasn as a conscientious researcher, just a passionate one :-), but apparently, we cannot do without it yet. The market is a fertile field for the search of the said concept: here there is a "digitized" interaction of information with ... Here it is a question of what. Money itself is only information, not matter (energy). Courses are already information about information. The interaction of instruments is the tertiary level. The apparent simplicity is therefore only a shell of fog. On the other hand, the presence of crises generates public motivation to search for a model, market participants are personally motivated. Hence my positive expectation of progress in the formation of this new science.
P.S. And nobody is secure from mistakes, yours truly including :-) (shortly: IMHO)
We need a physical database for the subject we are studying. Until we create it, we will have to use Neural Networks as the only tool to exploit the patterns found (by itself). Having systematized the observed phenomena, we can try to create a mathematical model adequately describing the observed subject and use it for making forecasts.
For now, we can state that there are no statistically significant levels in kotier, which an instrument's price would "gravitate" to. There is no statistically significant partitioning of the kotir into Fibo levels. It is impossible to reliably detect the significance of the "Golden Section" in formation of historical extremums of the price. We can strictly prove the absurdity of using any price series smoothing methods for the forecast. The reason lies in the stable negative correlation in the neighboring readings of the series of the first difference (FDD) of the kotir at any TF and the positive correlation for the smoothed series.
The declared database may be credited with the fact that:
1. There is a statistically significant weak negative correlation in the adjacent readings of FFs for the financial series.
2. There is a confirmed stable correlation between volatility (standard deviation) of an instrument and the correlation coefficient in adjacent samples of the FFD. This leads to the pinching effect of strong market movements and seems to explain the nature of "fat tails" in the probability density function for RPR. Here are the pictures to illustrate this effect:
On the left side the dependence of volatility on the current market situation is shown. We can see that the market is usually in flat condition and its predictability (correlation coefficient between neighboring samples in the PDF) is higher for "calm" condition (when volatility is lower). The same picture is shown on the right, but in the Volatility-Monetary Anticipation axis in the EPR. We can state that volatility of an instrument increases with its trendiness.
So, here is what we have in the Market description.
Who will add what to the piggy bank?