You must always set the right purpose/question for the study - page 11
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
Okay, the maths is clear. I'm not pointing fingers at all your lapses. Not yet. There are too many, and it's not the point. Out of respect for one of our great mathematicians, I'll just say that his last name is spelled Chebyш Chebyev. After all, the letters "ch" and "sh" are on different sides of the keyboard, so it's not a misprint.
But 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 goal/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.
The thing is that SP did not offer any discussion from the beginning and did not try to solve any puzzles or provide evidence.
He simply suggested a different approach to take the "Market" fortress, as it seems to him.
But his wording gives the impression that he's going to share something after all.
But he's already shared and there won't be any more.
That's as far as I'm concerned
.
Dear SProgrammer, if you would be so kind as to formulate a very precise definition of the research goal/question 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.
.
Start with the essence. Signals, graphs, it's all secondary, the essence. Oh, come on. Forget it. :))
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!
Hell, yeah, M. It's a target. And how do you get the wey there.
The thing is that SP did not propose any discussion from the outset and did not puzzle over any proof of anything behind his bosom.
He simply suggested a different approach as he sees fit to take the "Market" fortress
But his wording gives the impression that he's going to share something after all.
But he's already shared and there's nothing more to share.
Well, that's as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, Bear, I didn't suggest anything as a discussion, 100% correct. You got it right. I'm sure ;)
>> oh, what's "way"? >> Way?
By the way, about points, planes, lines. The axiomatics of classical geometry suggests that these are indefinable concepts. I think Hilbert talked about this as far back as 100 years ago. You can call all these concepts, say, barrels, stools and tables. It's not about the names, it's about the relationship between them.
This is the goal of "I have a goal to become rich.
You should even ask a child about it and he will say something approximate. (but harmless).
I define the goal very strictly: to develop a system whose signals show a market reversal without a lag, i.e. when it happens or when it is ahead.
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.
All right.
Boring. Boring with you. Shit, it's all the same old stuff, nothing new. "What's it all about, the louse is about the bath." I wish there was something new. But a demagogue is a demagogue......))))
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!
Look in the box... there's a claim for the first lemon...
Start with the essence. The signals, the charts, it's all secondary, the essence. Oh, come on. Forget it. :))
My dear, you can't even grasp the point in bold print. The point is that I asked you (!) in a nice way to state your point of view on the subject. That is, that you, dear, start with the essence. Or at least tell me what you, my dear, see the point.
You don't see fmg, you don't know anything, and you can't say a word in essence. That's the point.
This is the goal of "I have a goal to get rich".
Even if you ask a kid, he'll say something approximate. (but harmless).
I define the goal very strictly: to develop a system, the signals of which show the 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.
All right.
Son, you probably think that's the answer I came up with for you. It happens. It's called navel-gazing mania.
In fact, it's exactly the formulation of the question I adopted for my research about three years ago. And, guess what, in a sense I've implemented it. And what didn't work out showed the natural objective limitations that any system will face.
Why do you think I came to this thread? I do not know if you read the title, but it gives the impression that the author understands something about it. At least that he for himself, for his research has been able to set the right purpose / question. But it turns out he doesn't, not in the slightest. It turns out he only knows that he has to do it properly. But he has no idea how to do it. I will not talk about him all kinds of hurtful words like "moron" or "moron", but the fact that he is a clown, this topic-starter - that's for sure.
.
But I see it's too early to end this conversation. Finally, you finally managed to if not formulate the correct purpose of the research, then at least show what it must be like. As a result, we see that the correct formulation should be similar to a kinematics problem for the 8th grade. And the most primitive one, on rectilinear uniform motion. And you got into the Forex market with this childish babble or you just want to teach us fools. Did you go to school, brother, or did you quit?
My dear, you can't even grasp the point in bold print. The point is that I asked you (!) to state your point of view on the subject in a nice way. That is, that you, dear one, should start with the point. Or at least tell me what you, my dear, see the point.
You don't see the point, you don't know anything, and you can't say a word of it. That's what it's all about.
Son, you probably think that's the answer I came up with for you. It happens. It's called navel-gazing mania.
It's actually exactly the formulation of the question I adopted for my research about three years ago. And, guess what, in a sense I've implemented it. And what didn't work out showed the natural objective limitations that any system will face.
Why do you think I came to this thread? I do not know if you read the title, but it gives the impression that the author understands something about it. At least that he for himself, for his research has been able to set the right purpose / question. But it turns out he doesn't, not in the slightest. It turns out he only knows that he has to do it right. But he has no idea how to do it. I will not talk about him all sorts of hurtful words like "moron" or "moron", but the fact that he is a clown, this topic-starter - that's for sure.
.
But I see it's too early to end this conversation. Finally, you finally managed to if not formulate the correct purpose of the research, then at least show what it must be like. As a result, we see that the correct formulation should be similar to a kinematics problem for the 8th grade. And the most primitive one, on rectilinear uniform motion. And you got into the Forex market with this childish babble or you just want to teach us fools. Did you go to school, brother, or did you quit?
Mum... That's something! ... For eighth grade? :))
Miracle, that's a tough one. Try and solve it. ha ha.
No, people aren't just inadequate.
>> what do you need to know to BACK up and then there will be a difference in the points.
Ooh! So I guessed it! Here we go