"The 'perfect' trading system - page 101
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
Petya, what did you have in diamath? Or was it no longer on the syllabus?
I did. And there was scientific communism. It's just that technical is one thing.
I'll glue the keys back on.))
Description is not implementation. Do you feel the difference? An idea may be carved even with an axe in frozen, purely material shit - it will not become less "ideal".
)
That's understandable, that's not what I mean.
"a) TC as a market model and
b) an TS following the market."
What's not material here?
Or is it already a projection ?
And here I don't understand "Don't confuse the everyday meaning of "idealism" with the philosophical one - our case."
If you're lazy, don't bother, I get the same thing - "a) TS as a market model and
b) TS following the market."
)
That's understandable, that's not what I mean.
"a) TS as a market model and
b) TS following the market."
What's not material here?
Or is it already a projection ?
And here I don't understand "Don't confuse the everyday meaning of 'idealism' with the philosophical one - our case."
If you're too lazy, don't bother. I get the same thing - "a) TS as a market model and
b) TS following the market."
I won't. Tea, not a philosophical seminar.)))
My point is that, as Alexei puts it, two ideas need to be appropriated. Separately. It would be a completely different approach to implementation.
To begin with, I believe we must move away from the term "ideal TS".
The term "optimal TS" seems acceptable.
zy.
By "optimal TS", I mean an approach from the standpoint of the theory of optimal control.
The "optimal TS" has nothing to do with "optimization" in the MT tester.
It was. And scientific communism was. It's just that technicality is one of.
Gentlemen, don't you think that dialectic is needed in this topic? :-)
Gentlemen, don't you think that dialectic is needed in this topic? :-)
I'm telling you - it's not a philosophical seminar. But we should have defined the terms, shouldn't we? Otherwise we will talk about different things, calling them by the same name, argue to grief, to ignorance, to smearing children's tears on our bristly faces. Do we need it? Well, we've made up our minds. And there will be... philosophy.)))
до размазывания детских слез на щетинистых мордасах
Lots of words. CPT (coefficient of useful talk) can never get above zero. Philosophy, it's KPT < 0 - anti useful twaddle.
...
What was the point of all that claptrap under communism was clear. So no one would guess, but everyone would look and feel smart, when in fact...
ZS. Philosophy tutors passed me by. They were weak.
ZS. My philosophy tutors were a bit of a bummer for me. They were weak.
Got it
>> left hook, right? >> or operkot?
Yeah, you're the one who can make jokes now. You probably haven't seen how the philosophers of Marxism-Leninism used to make jokes like that, and comrades made invalids. At least they weren't canned.
So still who-how-how hooey. Philosophy in the right hands is a powerful thing.