Non-fitting system - main features - page 8
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
to Svinozavr
Honestly, I don't want to trample on your own beloved carrot field. It is more correct to remind that everyone has his own opinion, and I respect yours, at least for the time being, despite the harshness that I made in your address, but again, not on a level playing field.
Yeah, the forum's a mess. There's all kinds of characters.
Easier to agree, indeed you are right. Schoolchildren will never build this in their lifetime:
https://www.metatrader5.com/ru/terminal/help/objects/fibo/fibo_arcs They can still somehow manage it in the woods, on the lake, but no way on the quotes. Really missing out, as it uses the most sophisticated analysis of the quotation process. Forgive my unprofessionalism. Amateur, what can I say.
??? Did I write about maths and geometry as sections of TA? Your humble servant was simply trying to draw your attention to this nuance with the lack of quotes there. Again?))
No, but I like your approach, you're trying to get to the root:
What was I supposed to do within the bounds of political correctness? At least this way there's hope you'll sober up. Then you'll say that you were tipsy - I'll understand (I sometimes allow it myself), and you'll save face)))
You know, there's an old joke about it. A young Jew goes up to an old, elderly Jew and asks, "Tell me, how's your health?" The young man grunts, looks at him carefully, and says, "Eh, young man, do you have the time?" What is TA to me? It's four years of wasted time and realising it's bullshit. And for you, still:
That's a neat way of putting it. I'd take my hat off, but already (remember, I hope?)). Don't quibble! Otherwise I would think you needed those 4 years to study SMA.
Dare I ask again: if TA is not the analysis of prices by various methods, then what is it? Don't tell me everything that doesn't work in price analysis is TA. That's an interesting approach, but it's not for discussion, it's for squabbling. Do we need it? )))
Well, okay, so that you finally understand - have as much fun with your analysis as you want. Who's stopping you?
I just wanted to define the terms. So that there is no confusion. Actually, there is no subject to dispute. You think that one of the ways of price analysis does not work. That's all. I'm not arguing. There is little that, as we intelligent people among us say, has not come up with c...ni in this field.
Nobody is bothering me - I just noticed that it's strange to attribute everything that doesn't work in price analysis to TA. As if it is something separate.
===
Please don't make wild arguments like geometry and mathematics - we are reasonable people. Otherwise I am beginning to have doubts....
Incoming price, outgoing profit. What's in between? :) :)
At the input of the interval - input bricks for analysis, i.e. prices in their pure form.
Inside the interval - mass processing of statistical data (price functions). It is possible that it is done only once and not every time inside the interval.
The output of the interval is short formulas directly predicting the price with a given confidence interval.
Greetings to the high assembly!
The topic proposed for discussion is as relevant as it is not new...
If you don't want to overload me with complicated terms, I will try to show you my vision of this project (don't judge, I'm not a MQL or Forex graduate, so I'm not fluent in complicated terminology) using simple common human notions.
I suggest you follow the link: https://forum.mql4.com/ru/5083/page5
It is difficult not to agree with what I heard from SVA, his comments are not exactly on the subject of this branch, but I want to support his idea that everything should not be complicated too much.
So, topic of discussion: "Non-fitting system - basic features".
Before parsing the features, i.e. before answering the question "what?" it would be logical to first define the answer to the question "what?", firstly, in order to know exactly what everyone is talking about; secondly, a clear idea of "what" often helps avoid incorrect arguments on the subject of "what".
From the Wikipedia definition of system: "A system in systems analysis is a set of entities (objects) and the connections between them, isolated from the environment for a certain time and with a certain purpose.A system in a general sense is a set of strongly connected objects, possessing the properties of organisation, cohesion, integrity and comprehensiveness. "
Here, the definition itself already helps to formulate some features of TS in general case (and helps to get rid of a widespread misconception) - i.e. the TS satisfying the definition "a set of strongly connected objects possessing the properties of organization, cohesion, integrity" does not need optimization, adjustment, corrections and other commissioning and maintenance; the TS not satisfying this definition is not a system inherently and automatically drops out of our field of view... Thus, we remove from the list of possible features of the non-fitting system the definition of the way of optimization - the SYSTEM needs NO optimization, and this is
- the first and obligatory sign of a working TS.
If I haven't bored you yet, let's try to find some more properties of TS in the system definition. From the very definition of a system ( a set of entities (objects) and connections between them, singled out from the environment for a certain period of time and with a certain purpose. A system in general sense - a set of strongly connected objects, possessing the properties of organization, connectivity and integrity) I venture to shift the following necessary requirements to TS: TS may be built only on the set of rules, signs, criteria subject to strict formalization (otherwise the condition of connectivity and organization is not satisfied). Hence we obtain that the TS must have an adequate and unambiguously predictable (no one says easily, but necessarily unambiguously) reaction to all external impacts. The unpredictability=chaos, which is not a system...let me present this conclusion as
- a second, equally obligatory attribute of a working TS.
I believe that these two obligatory attributes are enough to define a working TS, it will unambiguously be "non-adaptable", we have coped with the task, clarity and understanding have come...
Do you want to argue that these criteria are too general? Let me object - the title of the thread did not say something like "please provide the exact recipe for TC preparation"...
Although a little specificity is possible:
1- all brilliant is simple, the simpler the system, the more chances its creator to get a stable, well-coordinated, WORKING TS;
2- it follows from the previous, to exclude from TS all ambiguously interpreted signals, indicators, all that is characterized by a probability
value of the range 0<...>1;
3- it also continues point 1, the minimum of system components - the hope for its efficiency and for the fact that while creating TS its author will be able
.to trace all the logical relationships and interactions
Now let me illustrate all mentioned with an example from real life. I should firstly mention that this example is not for those who deal with Forex with a feeling and awareness of "absolute exclusivity and importance" of this kind of activity, but for all normal people:
- Since Forex is a kind of market, it is subject to some common rules for any market,
:one of such rules of conduct in the market
"These
fundamental rules, despite the seeming contradiction of the interests of the parties, make the market a market
.Each of us has, more than once in our lives, carried out elementary market transactions at the grocery or food market, mostly successfully. We didn't have to dive into Elliott waves and disperse the Ishimoku clouds the night before "entering the market"...
I apologize if my thoughts are not very clear (I didn't graduate from a literature school, either).
....... NO optimisation of the SYSTEM is necessary, and this is
- the first and obligatory sign of a working TS
......
Can I disagree with this?
In any stable system, there is such a parameter as the Feedback Factor, which must be adjusted (read "optimized"), without it, it will "break down" after a while. Even a semi-automatic machine like the Drain Tank (not to be confused with one of the topics on this forum) has it :)
As for the rest, I agree - the less sub-parameters to be optimised, the better.... Even better if these 'sub-parameters' determine not the coefficient itself, but the order and rules of its automatic adjustment :)
Are we optimising on stationary or non-stationary BP? What are we discussing all the time?
The topic of non-stationarity of prices is a very good one. A number of prices are indeed non-stationary. At least that's how it works for me. But. This has also been said many times. A lot depends on the space in which the price series is considered. In a usual space it is non-stationary, in some other space (let's not say which one) it is very similar to stationarity. It all depends on the point of view.
The topic of non-stationarity of prices is a very good one. A number of prices are indeed non-stationary. At least that's how it works for me. But. This has also been said many times. A lot depends on the space in which the price series is considered. In a usual space it is non-stationary, in some other space (let's not say which one) it is very similar to stationarity. It all depends on the point of view.
It's not the first time I've come across the opinion that the quote depends on the point of view. This one quote is the only one, all the rest are speculations, like different brokerage companies or something else. This one quotir can be transformed into another BP, but it is a derivative of the BP which is fed to the input of the terminal. And it will necessarily differ from the initial one in some way. Let's not confuse the kotir with the waving on which decisions are made.
You don't need to write that I am confused with something - I am not. Moreover, I didn't write anything about the quality of DT quotes or about the mashka.
The position that there is "one quoter" is not productive. If only because, let's say, I solved the problem of non-stationarity for myself a long time ago. And you are still wringing your hands in the forum and accusing others of being insensitive. Think about it. Though of course there is a problem of unsteadiness, but there are also ways to solve it.
Do you have any real ideas how to account for non-stationarity in the tester?
So it's not very difficult. It requires some work, but by and large the problem is solvable. But for some reason it's not discussed.
The position that 'kotir one' is not productive. If only because, let's say, I, for example, solved the problem of non-stationarity for myself long ago. And you are still wringing your hands on the forum and accusing others of being insensitive. Think about it. Though of course there is a problem of unsteadiness, but there are also ways to solve it.
A lot depends on the space in which a number of prices are considered.
You don't need to write that I am confused with something - I am not. Especially since I have not written anything about the quality of DT quotes or about the wrecker at all.
The position that "kotir one" is not productive. If only because, let's say, I solved the non-stationarity problem long ago. And you are still wringing your hands on the forum and accusing others of being insensitive. Think about it. While of course there is the problem of unsteadiness, there are also ways to solve it.
Congratulations. Judging by the literature, not the forum. Unfortunately, I'm not the only one wringing my hands.
Congratulations. Judging by the literature, not the forum. Unfortunately, I'm not the only one wringing my hands.
I am not writing this for the purpose of boasting. I'm writing that - there are ways. It helps a lot when you know you can get through.