You must always set the right purpose/question for the study - page 10
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
Well, how else can I get to you? I'll torture you to answer the question. So the question is...
Poor guy. You've got a real problem, Leo, it's kind of pathetic... a little :))
But still, I would advise against trying to come up with a clear statement of purpose.
It is very fundamental.
Why do you need a point? Maybe it's not a point at all.
Poor guy. You've got a real problem, Leo, it's a bit pathetic... a little :)))
Can you imagine feeling sorry for yourself? )))) Yurixx asked you a good, correct question.
I defined the goal very precisely.
I suggest you do the same. No excuses, no questions asked, no nonsense about maths, physics, etc. Your relationship with them is strained.
What did you say? -
You want to argue with me about maths? :)) But I think it's silly to argue with someone for whom what I've said is not self-evident:))) But in general, you should have argued about this topic at university, did you skip higher mathematics? But for an understanding of whether the plane in one-dimensional space is a point, or not, I refer you to Messrs Riemann, Chebychev, Ricard, Lobachevsky, etc. Do you understand what I am talking about? :))
I marked your assertion in red, does it, excuse me, indicate that you consider yourself an expert in mathematics? :) But apparently you're actually done with understanding it at the level of geometry.
What are your excuses? I haven't claimed anything yet.
You're beginning to amuse me.
And I'm beginning to realize that not everything is so simple - something that someone can't get, it means something is missing.
You wanted the definition of a point :)) It's very simple - it's what space is made of. What is space, I expect the question... Well, it's more complicated than that.) - but look on the internet for "Riemannian space", "metric space". But oh, you surprise me more and more, why did you go into an area that no one is pulling you into, the bottle :))
In modern mathematics Space is defined as a set of some objects, which are called its points; they may be geometric shapes, functions, states of physical system, etc. Considering their set as Space, one abstracts from all their properties and considers only those properties of their totality which are determined by the relations taken into account or introduced by definition. These relations between points and certain figures, i.e. sets of points, define the "geometry" of Space When constructed axiomatically its basic properties
This is a quote. :))
So you are still unable to ask the question?
But I repeat = are you sure you need a point :)))
Did you understand what you wrote? - It's pure demagoguery.
The purpose of demagogy
Demagogy can have any purpose except to find out the truth. In demagogy, an argument is considered "correct" if it is directed towards that goal; only "correct" (in this sense) arguments are allowed.
>> Maybe it's not a dot at all.
Still, I would advise you not to stop trying to come up with clear statements of purpose.
It's a matter of principle.
Why the point? Maybe it's not a point at all.
You can't approach them yourself. How will you lead others on? You'll only bring them to the point of pangs....))))
You can't approach them yourself. How will you let others down? You'll only bring them to their knees....))))
+1. "Sometimes it's better to chew than to talk" :)
Do you want to argue with me about maths? :)) But I think it's silly to argue with a person for whom what I have said is not a self-evident fact:))) But in general, you should have argued about this topic at university, did you skip higher mathematics? But for an understanding of whether the plane in one-dimensional space is a point, or not, I refer you to Messrs Riemann, Chebychev, Ricard, Lobachevsky, etc. Do you understand what I am talking about? :))
I marked your assertion in red, does it, excuse me, indicate that you consider yourself an expert in mathematics? :) But apparently you're actually done with understanding it at the level of geometry.
What are your excuses? I haven't claimed anything yet.
You're beginning to amuse me.
And I'm beginning to realize that not everything is so simple - something that someone can't get, it means something is missing.
You wanted the definition of a point :)) It's very simple - it's what space is made of. What is space, I expect the question... Well, it's more complicated than that.) - but look on the internet for "Riemannian space", "metric space". But oops, you surprise me more and more, why did you go into an area that no one is pulling you into, the bottle :))
In modern mathematics, Space is defined as a set of some objects, which are called its points; they may be geometric shapes, functions, states of physical system, etc. Considering their set as Space, one abstracts from all their properties and takes into account only those properties of their set which are determined by the relations taken into account or introduced by definition. These relations between points and certain figures, i.e. sets of points, define the "geometry" of Space When constructed axiomatically its basic properties
This is a quote. :))
So you are still unable to ask the question?
But I repeat = are you sure you need a point :)))
Okay, the maths is clear. I won't point fingers at all your bloopers. Not yet. There are too many, and it's not the point. Out of respect for one of our great mathematicians, I'll only say that his surname is spelled Chebyshev. After all, the letters "ch" and "sh" are on opposite sides of the keyboard, so this is not a misprint.
But let's get back to our sheep.
I answered your question and phrased my answer the way you wanted it, twice. You quickly rolled to the side and suggested "Define the purpose/question with utmost precision". I did that too, both extremely and precisely. And asked you to do the same on your part. And what, did the balloon deflate ? Can't you say anything intelligible? That's unfortunate.
.
I'll try one last time.
Dear SProgrammer, if you would be so kind as to formulate a very precise definition of the purpose/question of the research as you think it should be. Very much it would be desirable to see brilliance of your intellect, correct statement of a problem, a correct direction of thought and deep understanding of a subject of research. And at the same time to compare with our grey ideas.
.
If you cannot do that (for whatever reason), you had better not write anything. You just know how to rant, I am convinced of that. But I am not interested.
Can you imagine feeling sorry for yourself? )))) Yurixx asked you a good, correct question -
And what did you answer? -
Did you understand what you wrote? - Pure demagoguery.
The purpose of demagoguery.
Demagogy can pursue any goal except to find out the truth. In demagogy, an argument is considered "correct" if it is directed towards this goal; only "correct" (in this sense) arguments are allowed.
It is a goal from the realm of "I have a goal to become rich".
Even a child can be asked that and he will say something approximate. (but harmless).
I define the goal very strictly: to develop a system, the signals of which show a market reversal without a lag, i.e. at the moment of its occurrence, or ahead of it.
There is no essence without which this goal will not be achieved. :)
Here is an example of exact formulation - "Define point at which intercepted aircraft will be intercepted in time required for me (rocket) to reach this point with keeping by aircraft of same speed and direction as at the moment of calculations". That is exactly what three-dimensional space and also time have to do with it, i.e. four-dimensional space and therefore a point is needed. Although. Here too, it is possible and necessary (in reality) to do without a point. But in theory by a point. This is a clear formulation.
Otherwise I want to know the graph. But do I really need to know it.
OK.
What do I need to know to make dough at the rate of 2,000 quid a month?
P.S. I don't care about quotes, charts, reversals and all that crap; I want the dough!
OK, the maths is clear. I'm not pointing fingers at all your lapses. Not yet. There are too many of them, and it's not the point. Out of respect for one of our great mathematicians I will only say that his last name is spelled Chebyshev. After all, the letters "ch" and "sh" are on opposite sides of the keyboard, so this is not a misprint.
But let's get back to our sheep.
I answered your question and phrased my answer the way you wanted it, twice. You quickly rolled to the side and suggested "Define the purpose/question with utmost precision". I did that too, both extremely and precisely. And asked you to do the same on your part. And what, did the balloon deflate ? Can't you say anything intelligible? That's unfortunate.
.
I'll try one last time.
Dear SProgrammer, if you would be so kind as to formulate a very precise definition of the purpose/question of the research as you think it should be. Very much it would be desirable to see brilliance of your intellect, correct statement of a problem, a correct direction of thought and deep understanding of a subject of research. And at the same time to compare with our grey thoughts.
.
If you cannot do that (for whatever reason), you had better not write anything. You just know how to rant, I am convinced of that. But I am not interested.
Bloop. No. :) Come on, don't be shy... :)) I don't care how you spell fimillae. I was wrong. You got that right. And that's what's most important? Well yes, you already tried to tell me that a point is not a plane. :)) Like I was talking nonsense. Well, go ahead, let's talk gramatics. I don't think it's right to call names, but what can I do? I'm a sinner. I have no respect for spelling. But it's not nice at all. I'll look for your mistakes and check them on a spell-checker. Yeah, hang on..... And you're the one who started it with spelling. You don't want to talk about maths. I'm gonna run out of patience. >> all right?