To follow up - page 51
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
In short, the hierarchy of frequencies is one thing. let's leave that for now.
There is no sense in analyzing "acceleration rate" etc. for bodies that do not change their mass.
In our case, mass, though it looks abstract, but it changes, and therefore a priori, acting on the contrary, we by changing
velocity-acceleration-acceleration-speed of acceleration-acceleration-speed of acceleration, etc., we can calculate the stages of mass change of the object in question. (albeit approximately).
Hierarchy of weight coefficients, which ultimately affect the object as a whole (or rather describe its mass changes).
the important point about influence is
1- lower levels in the hierarchy influence senior levels etc. Thus, through higher levels indirectly (and not directly) influence the total mass, or
2- Lower and upper levels in the hierarchy have the same effect on the mass in general.
3- Either way.
so far the 1st variant seems more logical, but i do not exclude the 3rd one.
By the way, as it seems to me, the article says that the 2nd variant is wrong due to the fact that every level in the hierarchy has its own life.
alexei, here about calculations from such point of view i am very interesting your opinion.
p- speaking of weights in indices, now think about the degree of influence that pairs with different number of price changes (number of ticks) will have on the index, from this side it makes sense to build pairs of equal-volume bars.
I'm going to bed, tomorrow we'll continue the bacchanalia.
There is no point in analysing "acceleration rate" etc. for bodies that do not change their mass.
In our case, mass, although it looks abstract, is changing, and therefore, a priori, acting on the contrary, we are by change
Velocity-acceleration-acceleration-acceleration-acceleration rates, etc. we can calculate the stages of mass change of the object under study. (albeit approximately).
Are you going to build a dynamic model of tool motion based on Newton's 2nd law? I am afraid that this branch cannot withstand such blasphemy.
(It is possible to create such a model, but there is no way out without diphooks. And who is going to create it for you?)
What is mass and the mass of what do you want to calculate? Give a definition of the mass of a single instrument.
Everything you write next about hierarchies and cabbages is completely incomprehensible to me.
P.S. All the same, it is better not to stir up the past and not try to make an eclectic mix of branches "Follow-up". Create your own branch, it will be better.
Are you going to build a dynamic model of tool motion based on Newton's 2nd law? I am afraid that this thread will not sustain such a sacrilege.
(It is possible to create such a model, but there is no way out without diphooks. And who is going to create it for you?)
What is mass and the mass of what do you want to calculate? Give me a definition of the mass of a single instrument.
Everything you wrote next about hierarchies and cabbages is completely incomprehensible to me.
P.S. All the same, it is better not to stir up the past and not try to make an eclectic mix of branches "Follow-up". Create your own branch, it will be better.
Apparently it has been misunderstood again. not on the basis of the 2nd law but "in spite of". the mass is not the tool but the currency (the exact change in mass obtained from acceleration analysis). ok, I will take this into account and make a separate thread. thank you.