Volumes, volatility and Hearst index - page 36
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
Does predicting the past sound strange?
Is it possible to predict the past? )
Do you remember what you wrote about before?
No, simply matching theoretical and calculated figures is not enough. You also need to match the content.
Deep thought. I second that. Indeed, what if the theoretical part concerns the origin of species, and the calculated part concerns the parameters of the Earth's orbit. Only here I have not understood, it is necessary to prove the coincidence of the contents, or the reader himself, with his own head may understand whether they coincide or not.
Really, except for "the only argument for self-similarity - similarity of graphs on different frames" - I did not see anything else.
I see, that explains your position. And I saw and, moreover, numerically confirmed for myself the existence of self-similarity.
By the way, the mathematical definitions of self-similarity given here by Farnsworth and Candid, based on the scale invariance of finite-dimensional distributions, seem to me if not exhaustive, then very close to the truth. They imply the coincidence not of a single number, but of distribution functions belonging to different fractal levels. This is just the correct comparison, because we deal with a stochastic process.
The "figure" of fractal dimension was not invented by me. And it does not have to be strictly the same for different "levels". But it is desirable that its deviations should be controllable and have no regularities.
Maybe this claim has some basis when it comes to a stationary stochastically homogeneous phenomenon. In that case, indeed, the same thing must happen at all fractal levels. As for the general case, in particular the market, which is stationary and homogeneous only in the fantasies of analysts, these claims seem very strange. What do you mean by controlled, by whom? Why "not controlled by any patterns"? What, none at all? And you are going to make money where there are no patterns ? Yeah, it's weird.
Deviations of this "figure", if the question is formulated correctly, may be just an indicator of the market changing, but you prohibit it on some unclear grounds. Well, if you load yourself with such restrictions, then self-similarity, Hirst and other fractal stuff are not worth talking about at all.
And don't ask me for a definition of self-similarity - I'm the one who's unhappy with the lack of such a coherent definition, and I was the one who asked where the boundary between "similar and the same" lies.
Well, the definitions that currently suit me have been mentioned above. From them, by the way, also follows the difference between similar and the same.
That's it for now.
As you like.
but predicting the past doesn't sound weird?
What's so strange about that? There is no past. We know this from the history of mankind and we know it from the history of quotes, which are rewritten by the DCs themselves.
Well, the past is real, of course, but it is not clear. But we want it to be clear. So we have to model it, i.e. predict it.
I thought I'd just ramble a little, because I can't say anything useful about Hyo.
joo, you're intriguing. Waiting for the chart.
What's so strange about that? There is no past. We know this from the history of mankind and we know it from the history of quotes, which are rewritten by the DCs themselves.
Well, the past is real, of course, but it is not clear. But we want it to be clear. So we have to model it, i.e. predict it.
I thought I'd just blurt it out a little, since I can't say anything useful about Hyo.
Why did you write that? To fluff? You mean you're bored and you don't have a past and someone keeps substituting it for you? And there's no history and it's all wrong? And you want to talk about it? I don't! Andrei01, on the other hand, I'm sure he'll keep you company.
Alexei, my question was addressed to Andrei01 in response to his:
Predictive algorithms predicting the future - maybe that just sounds weird?
Apparently it also sounds strange to you. Yes, that there are identification algorithms that define a model by predicting into the past, but are we talking about them now?
PS: DC substitutes, but ticks, but ORPLC - then normal companies stay very close to the source (I usually take bloomberg as the source).
Why did you write that? To fluff?
Are you statistically correct - again? :о)
I understand that this resource is perceived by many as a place of communication between like-minded people and fans of the Fora and MTS theme.
But the owners of the resource may have other agendas.
Like Crowfr - blow off steam, and to the Seychelles court - leave hope, everyone who enters.
So here too, it seems to me, there are too many "diverse" debaters.
Abi the topic gets bogged down. Conspiracy?
Not for a minute... It's just their business model.
---
Your 3D drawings are great. We're waiting for you from behind the lines.
With or without language, you'll tell us more than the eternal "doubters"...
;)
Andrei01: Опережающие алгоритмы предсказывающие будущее - может как раз это звучит странно?
Farnsworth : Apparently it sounds just as strange to you.
No, not really strange, frankly. There are a lot of people on here hiding behind the phrase "I don't predict, I just trade the market!". But I still think it's a prediction based on an assessment of the present and on statistical evidence from the past saying that this is what will happen more often than not under these conditions.
Why did you write that? To fluff up? I mean, you're bored and have no past, someone keeps substituting it for you? And there's no history and it's all wrong? And you want to talk about it? I don't! Andrei01, on the other hand, I'm sure he'll keep you company.
Why so categorical? If anything, all the conclusions, even the most scientifically and scientifically shaped, which will not be clearly proven by their author that they improve the expectation, can rightfully belong to the category of flood, as they are nothing better than a simple flip of a coin.
Here you are dear, can you about your deep scientific conclusions to claim that they are not flood in this context? :)