_Market description - page 19
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
By the way, Prival... Do you even understand the essence of Nyquist-Shannon theorem in relation to filters and consequently to what you are talking about here... ? :) Apparently not.
You should at least read the last name in there first. Wipe your eyes and read it, I've been telling you about it for 3 pages and you're finally starting to get it. Congratulations, you're beginning to understand something.
Remains to understand the other two limitations, although I think you do not fully understand it, because to understand it you need to work with this.
Z.I. I'm sick of your little lecture.
Privat, you what! :) You seem to think I couldn't google "kotelnikov theorem wiki" :) Yeah.... OPHONARETY.... Haven, you seem to be just a sulphur... at all in these matters... I thought you would have guessed to match the Nyquist frequency for filters and the name of the theorem... and that would help you get to the bottom of it... But you don't even seem to know what it is! Nonsense...
Read carefully page in wiki where Kotelnikov theorem is described, although it is called so only in Russia... :) The whole world knows it as Nyquist's theorem.... It says, apparently just for you... that what you're trying to do is impossible... You're sick of "lykbosis" simply because you've embarrassed yourself publicly and completely... And I don't even feel sorry for you anymore... Alas, you have proven to be a weak soul, however... That's it.
For all you other readers, don't make the same mistakes as Prival... Don't waste your time on foolishness, try to understand the essence of what you are doing. And not just for the sake of doing something...
For myself, I even define certain stages of professional growth of man in forex studies... And one of them, this is about more than half of the way through all sorts of filters, speculators, and other sine wave patterns... The break is stuck right there... Well there are no sinusoids or cycles in general in forex, there's something else that looks a lot like these oscillatory cycles etc.
A pause though, you'd just have to write something like - oh shit, that's how wrong I was, but that's ok, I'll just move on from this and that's fine...
So, don't do the enlightenment and don't get on your and LP's nerves for nothing :). And LP is now thinking about how to translate that paradox about the same point into the task at hand, I'm sure of it.
LP, isn't thinking now, but waiting for some sort of root search to come to an end... To start to really analyse how to use it somehow... But I had to widen the range of the search, let's see if something better comes up... :)
LP, is not thinking now, but waiting for some kind of root search to come to an end... To start really analysing how to use it somehow... But I had to widen the range of the search, let's see if something better comes up... :)
All the better, LP already knows everything :)
...The whole world knows it as Nyquist's theorem....
The world knows Nyquist's frequency and the theorem is Kotelnikov's. That's right, you ignoramus. And the whole world is the Americans? Ask them who was the first to go into space, they'll find it too.
For your information:
"several years ago the Eduard Rein Foundation came across Kotelnikov's articles in Soviet periodicals and were convinced of his indisputable priority".
And if they had been allowed access to closed papers, they would have found it sooner and more quickly.
Very often the primacy of American scientists is questionable, if not blown at all, because they are show men, and basic science (fundamentals) is very serious, it is not a show. We have too much closed work, because of this a lot is not recognized.
...The breakdown is stuck at just this stage...
At what stage I got stuck is not for you to judge. You can only guess and make another ridiculous assumption.)
...Well there are no sinusoids and cycles in general in forex, there's something else that looks very similar to these cycles oscillating etc...
Don't try to twist things around. We talked about models, we wrote formulas, if you remember. And you've once again pissed yourself. The formula you wrote (where all the coefficients are constant) is very easy to filter, and that's where the polemics started.
For cycles: Cycles ... in ... forex ... no ... hmm ... yeah, I think that's another one of your quips.
Z.U. I find it hilarious, your attempts to spread your fingers at superficial knowledge in a conversation with a man who has scientific work in this area. Do you want to fight further? ))) Or you want to read a book?
...The whole world knows it as Nyquist's theorem....
The world knows Nyquist's frequency and the theorem is Kotelnikov's. That's right, you ignoramus. And the rest of the world is the Americans? Ask them who was the first to go into space, they'll find it too.
For your information:
"several years ago the Eduard Rein Foundation came across Kotelnikov's articles in Soviet periodicals and were convinced of his indisputable priority".
And if they had been admitted to closed papers, they would have found it sooner and more quickly.
Very often the primacy of American scientists is questionable, if not blown at all, because they are show men, and basic science (fundamentals) is very serious, it is not a show. We have too much closed work, because of this a lot is not recognized.
...The breakdown is stuck at just this stage...
At what stage I got stuck is not for you to judge. You can only guess and make another ridiculous assumption.)
...Well there are no sinusoids and cycles in general in forex, there's something else that looks very similar to these cycles oscillating etc...
Don't try to twist things around. We talked about models, we wrote formulas, if you remember. And you've once again pissed yourself. The formula you wrote (where all the coefficients are constant) is very easy to filter, and that's where the polemics started.
For cycles: Cycles ... in ... forex ... no ... hmm ... yeah, I think that's another one of your quips.
Z.U. I find it hilarious, your attempts to spread your fingers at superficial knowledge in a conversation with a man who has scientific work in this area. Do you want to fight further? ))) Or are you going to read a book?
Halt, the whole world is the whole world ... :) Unfortunately... Yeah, knows it like Nyquist's theorem.
OK, it's not for me to judge, you're right.
On the highlighted -
Privat, you're backing yourself into a corner, every move you make only makes things worse... That formula I wrote, I repeat it every time. You want me to point a finger? Or can you find it yourself? I can quote from the Nyquist-Kotelnikoff theorem for everyone here... which describes exactly what I've been trying to tell you all along... but you didn't listen and you're backing into the corner you're in now...
About cycles, ;) Frankly speaking I don't care what you think about it... :) And I didn't say it for you, for you they are and the price chart is the sum of sinusoids... :)) ... Actually it's an idea circa 1995...
About your nuchal works. :).... It just does... Their, these labors... um... All right, I don't want to go on...
Fighting with you? I don't really need it, and it makes no sense, because I'm sure that those who wanted to understand our dispute to the end understood what your mistake was and what you've screwed up... And frankly speaking, I don't even care about that ... :)
Wow, what clever green words have appeared, except they're not yours, they're someone else's.
Your pearls are right there on page 15 of 'Market Description'.
Wow, what clever green words have appeared, except they are not yours, they are someone else's.
Your farts are right there on page 15 . https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/114902/page15.
... Take the sum of 10 sines with different periods, phases, constant components and coefficients before each one... and try to predict it... You can even decompose this graph into a Fourier series...
Easily predict it. A child's task.
That's where it all started, not the green letters.
Yes, that's exactly what I asked you to do in the expanded form in the quote above... :) So what's the problem, Prival... Go ahead and predict...
It really is not a feasible task for you ))
1. Globally, a sine wave has three parameters - amplitude(A), frequency(f) and phase (phi)
Here is the formula,
As it turns out, sinusoids are defined by (constant components, periods, coefficients, phase shifts, coefficients with period) 5 units).
2. FYI, there is an unambiguous relationship between frequency and period. Here is the formula
So you can specify period or you can specify frequency, it makes no difference.
3. At least learn to count to ten (you have nine parameters you invented, some ten ). You need 10 amplitudes, 10 frequencies, 10 phases and that's it.
4. Do you think you can refute Kotelnikov's theorem with your postings. Read it again.5. And then download the file I posted earlier and practice. First on one sine wave, then on two, etc. Maybe you will learn something.
It really is not a feasible task for you ))
1. Globally, a sine wave has three parameters - amplitude(A), frequency(f) and phase (phi)
Here is the formula,
As it turns out, sinusoids are defined by (constant components, periods, coefficients, phase shifts, coefficients with period) and there are five of them )).
2. FYI, there is an unambiguous relationship between frequency and period. Here is the formula
So you can specify period or you can specify frequency, it makes no difference.
3. At least learn to count to ten (you have nine parameters you invented, some ten ). You need 10 amplitudes, 10 frequencies, 10 phases and that's it.
4. Do you think you can refute Kotelnikov's theorem with your postings. Read it again5. And then download the file I posted earlier and practice. First on one sine wave, then on two, etc. Maybe you'll learn something.
Breakdown... You're great... in your yuletide... :) I'll tell you frankly - go write some more scientific papers.... For me personally there is nothing else needed ...
ps: The question ... rhetorical - well, why is it so hard to say, and first of all yourself - ... well I wrote there above ...
Let's consider another lyrical digression over and get back down to earth.
I am very clever or nobody is interested in it anymore) So when trading on the fast market the TA should look at
- strength of momentum;
- time of day, for typical news hours;
- try to find out which or maybe both currencies are momentum drivers;
- Check for strong supports, resistances, very "round" levels;
- Fibo;
______________________________________________________________________________________________
We could go on looking for the "significant" to work on a sluggish flat market, but I think we missed something. Namely depth.
Suppose we make a forecast for N bars or N points how deep we should look for the development of the instrument to understand where these N points will be? I do approximately this way: for a forecast for N pips I look at the depth corresponding to 4*N or 5*N; for a forecast for N bars I look at the same 4*N or 5*N of previous bars. This data was obtained through semi-experimentation and I would be very interested in opinions of people who tried it and references to researches on this topic. Or maybe the formulation of the question itself is not very correct?