Offtopic: Stealing Aleynikov or how arbitration is done ;-) - page 14
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
It seems to be better than from you after all.
It is objectively known that E[Ai + Bi + Ci] = 0.
Each of the processes is iid.
Obviously, no one will keep an expert who gives consistently wrong predictions. I.e. E[Ai]>=0, E[Bi]>=0, E[Ci]>=0.
So E[Ai]=E[Bi]=E[Ci]=0. That is, on average they all say nothing. At each particular moment, each expert's prediction may or may not be correct, but when which is which is impossible to know.
Nah, you're no doctor. Using "Obviously" in a proof... And this "It is objectively known that E[Ai + Bi + Ci] = 0." is spurious. All in all you are not a mathematician timbo. And you don't even have basic logic in your considerations.
This is not the right way to argue, formulas, arguments...
That's the way to do it.
For all this to happen, there has to be private ownership of everything in general. Where there is a master and his property right is protected, i.e. sacred, everything is buzzing and spinning,
So, psychologist, was I right about your ideology? It's all based on the sanctity of private property. That's the word. And ideology, unlike the rational approach, is based on faith, but not pure faith, but based on self-interest. So you, brother, are essentially a religious fanatic. With one "but". Your faith is not for higher motives, but for your own selfish interest.
But how boring is this infantile belief that private property will save everyone. It's like the Philosopher's Stone, which medieval alchemists looked for in their ignorance in order to turn whatever they could into gold. It is the same - a panacea, a cure-all for all ills, which ignorant doctors dream of.
I don't know what you've been trained for, but you've been taught poorly. You don't even know that property (not just private property, but all kinds of property) arose as a consequence of the division of labor in production. You think you can see that it has existed and will exist forever? Naive.
And the division of labour not only separates people from one another in the process of production, but also unites them on the scale of society, because in such a system of production they cannot do without one another. And that is why everything social is of colossal importance for human beings. God forbid, if your fantasy came true and all property became private, then life on Earth would be a living hell. And if you put your head to it, even for 5 minutes, you will quickly become convinced of this yourself.
Any extreme that man falls into is delusional and fucked up. And the one you've fallen into is especially so.
Oh, man.
Oh, you're exhausting.
There's a medical term for inoperable.
And may I be banned, but your brain is inoperable.
Nah, you don't qualify as a doctor. Using "Obviously known" in evidence... And this "It is objectively known that E[Ai + Bi + Ci] = 0." is spurious. All in all you are not a mathematician timbo. And you don't even have basic logic in your considerations.
E[Ai + Bi + Ci] = 0 is a fact proven repeatedly by independent studies.
Any mathematical proof is built on some assumptions. Within my assumptions, my construction is logical and consistent. You can try to disprove it by proving that my assumptions are unrealistic.
Are you saying that there are financial experts working somewhere who consistently give wrong predictions? They leak money all the time and haven't been fired yet?
Any research on financial funds is subject to survival bias as it only analyses those funds that have survived. Those losers who have plummeted and closed down are left out of the study. But even the survivors earn 0 to the index, i.e. if you take into account the losers who closed, you get the weak negative correlation with the market that I mentioned earlier.
The funny thing is that you're not arguing with me but with platitudes like the multiplication table, these are all established facts known to everyone in the industry. But don't get upset, you are not alone in your belief in the wisdom of experts, there are millions of such lemmings, these same experts live on their blind faith.
You argue with your own arguments, with fanciful opposition. I am merely pointing out the flaw in your logic. Not a single fact "known to everyone in the industry", not a single rigorous proof. Shoot yourself. I know what millions live on better than you :)
PS. Once again, quite seriously, you have obvious defects in logic. Don't you notice them yourself?
Oh, you're exhausting.
What can you do, working with your head is tiring for many. You're not alone.
Any mathematical proof is built on certain assumptions.
I remember this one. On the one hand, of course you can call the statement mathematically correct. But you don't see the difference between which assumptions can be used in the construction of proofs and which cannot. It's a statement you use to justify the truth of your statements. In the sense that like "the proof is built on assumptions", and you make whatever assumptions you want. That's not mathematical logic, that's demagoguery, verbal equivocation. OK, everyone is entitled to any point of view here, no one will judge you for making such statements. But there is some discomfort when different things are asserted with the most serious look and without emoticons. If today you are a psychologist, tomorrow it turns out to be a joke, you become a mathematician, then it turns out that basic mathematical definitions are not familiar to you... Eventually they start to outright tell you off... Oh, man, I'm disoriented... So, Sklichasian, who are you really? Is the truth out there?
>> who are you really?
I know for a fact Timbo is a bourgeois :)