What is everyone looking for? - page 13
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
Была ветка и об этом. Фальшивая постановка хадачи.
Проблема в том, что эти лампочки-сигналы будут зависимыми. И хоть их миллион поставь, а не 100, все равно надежность комплексного предсказания при заданной корреляции сигналов лампочек будет ограниченной и не будет сколь угодно близка к 1.
There is such a thing.
Conversation on the phone with the secretary -
- Can I speak to Ivan Ivanovich?
- How do you want to be introduced?
- Well ..... eh..... imagine me naked.....
Эта задача показывает что один достоверный индикатор важнее 1000 не достоверных. :)
Bullshit.
There are no "valid" systems at all. Only the Creator Lord God is "authentic". Everything else can only *approach* Him in terms of "credibility".
Back in the 1970s, TI *proved* theoretically and showed practically that it was possible to build a network system of interacting processors with any degree of low (non-zero) reliability. Such a system will have anything close to 100% reliability (fault tolerance).
Only "economic" redundancy issues remain.
Here is a link from recent scientific papers on the subject:
"A reliability model for multiprocessor networks with degradable nodes"
J.D Bruguera1, a, E.L Zapata2, a and O.G Plata3, a
We present a model of reliability for computer networks wherein the nodes, rather than the links, fail. The nodes will become degraded as time elapses, and this degradation will be reflected in a non-constant failure rate. The level of the node's degradation will be determined by its residual function. The failure rate and, therefore, reliability will be a function of the hardware integrity of the nodes. Throughout the study we assume that all of the nodes will suffer the same degradation.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B75C7-4998TYD-JS&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1280844779&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e613604791d8bdeca4618a46ef7f660c
also:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/113393455/abstract
etc.
Брехня.
"Достоверных" систем ВООБЩЕ не бывает. "Достоверен" лишь только Творец Господь Бог. Остальное может только *приближаться* к Нему по степени "достоверности".
Ещё в 1970-х годах фирма TI *доказала* теоретически и показала практически возможность построения сети системы взаимодействующих между собой процессоров с какой угодно низкой (ненулевой) надёжностью. Такая система будет иметь какую угодно близкую к 100% надёжность (отказоустойчивость).
Остаются только "экономические" вопросы резервирования.
Вот навскид ссылка из последних научных работ на эту тему :
"A reliability model for multiprocessor networks with degradable nodes"
J.D Bruguera1, a, E.L Zapata2, a and O.G Plata3, a
We present a model of reliability for computer networks wherein the nodes, rather than the links, fail. The nodes will become degraded as time elapses, and this degradation will be reflected in a non-constant failure rate. The level of the node's degradation will be determined by its residual function. The failure rate and, therefore, reliability will be a function of the hardware integrity of the nodes. Throughout the study we assume that all of the nodes will suffer the same degradation.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B75C7-4998TYD-JS&_user=10&_coverDate=07%2F31%2F1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1280844779&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e613604791d8bdeca4618a46ef7f660c
ещё:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/113393455/abstract
и т.п.
Or am I confused, but it seems that von Neumann proved it in his time. I'll look through your links - maybe I mean the same thing...
Applied to trading:
"
..........
- Are there other practical implications of robust methods that differ from the results of studies assuming a normal probability distribution?
- An important application concerns the situation where you have multiple indicators for a particular market. The question arises: how to combine several indicators in the most efficient way? Based on certain precise statistical measurements, it is possible to assign weights to different indicators. However, the choice of weights assigned to each indicator is often subjective. You will find in the robust statistics literature that in most cases the best strategy is not to weight, but to assign each indicator a value of 1 or 0. In other words, to accept or reject the indicator. If an indicator is good enough to be used in principle, it is also good enough to be assigned a weight equal to the others. And if it does not meet this standard, it is not worth bothering with.
............ "The New Market Wizards" - interview with William Eckhardt
Или я чего-то путаю, но, кажется, фон Нейман это в свое время доказывал. Щас по ссылкам вашим пройдусь - может, я о том же...
Why would you do that?
Any decent cyberneticist knows that. Because it's taught at the institute.
Why on earth would you, colleague, and I once again *prove* the whistleblowing nature of xProgrammer's claims?
Let him prove his whistleblowing himself.
Или я чего-то путаю, но, кажется, фон Нейман это в свое время доказывал. Щас по ссылкам вашим пройдусь - может, я о том же...
Uh-huh. Here's his paper: "Probabilistic logic and the synthesis of reliable organisms from unreliable components".
С какой стати?
Любой приличный спец по кибернетике это знает. Потому что это проходят в институте.
С какой стати Вы, коллега, и я должны в очередной раз *доказывать* свистообразность заявлений xProgrammer-а ?
Пусть он сам доказывает свой свист.
No, that's not what I mean. That's what I'm talking about.
Угу. Вот его работа: "Вероятностая логика и синтез надежных организмов из ненадежных компонент".
Right,
von Neumann J.: Probabilistic Logics and the Synthesis of Reliable Organisms from Unreliable Components. Automata Studies (Shannon, McCarthy, eds.) Princeton Univ.Press NJ 1956.
Да не, я не об этом. С этим-то как раз все ясно.
What about?
And personally, I am not entirely clear about "it": in those rare moments when SProgrammera has a delay in the delivery of medication (which he is also obviously drinking brandy) - in those moments he is enlightened and begins to ask almost correct questions. But either from the residual effects of medication, or from a strong noise interference called "arrogance" - he almost always comes to the WRONG conclusions, i.e. the exact opposite of the right direction.
For example, in this thread, he criticises (by the way, you have to have 2+ higher education to understand exactly what he's talking about.) AROUND the indicators. Great, averaging is a BAD thing altogether. We can break down in detail why it's bad and what's available as an alternative.
But.... the problem is that I personally am totally uninspired by such problem statements.