Do you need the names of financial instruments to fully analyse and trade? - page 4

New comment
 
hrenfx:
I have said several times that the linear relationship of the two BPs is characterized by QC,

That's right, ONLY:

QC characterizes the relationship of the two BPs, not their linear relationship. That is, if you remove the word "linear" from your thesis, it becomes true.

We can only talk about a linear relationship when |KK|=1. (I have to repeat myself)

If KK=0.5 or KK=-0.9, then the relationship cannot be called linear.

hrenfx:
QC, which does not have to be one at all.

Quite right. And in that case the relationship is not linear.

hrenfx:
Write specifically what is not clear to you?

Thank you, but it's clear to me, I wanted to help you.

hrenfx:
And if you disagree with something, please justify it.

See above in the text.

 
goldtrader:

QC characterises the connection between the two BPs, not the linear connection between them. That is, if you remove the word "linear" from your thesis, it becomes true.

This is a huge misconception. Here in the comment I gave an example where two BPs have the strongest relationship, but the QC is zero.
 
hrenfx: Where did the highlighting come from?
All I meant to say was that you can highlight not the majors (roughly speaking, pairs with a quid), but some kind of baseline from which everything else can be reconstructed. That's pretty clear as it is.
 
Ahem, I must have missed it, has the definition of a linear relationship appeared anywhere here?
 
Mathemat:
I just wanted to say that you can select not the majors (roughly speaking, pairs with the quid), but a certain basis on which everything else can be reconstructed. That's pretty clear as it is.

If there are no USD pairs available, it does not make it impossible to trade. There are always majors in any set of financial instruments, even if USD is not there.

 
hrenfx:

Give an example.

Please elaborate on the errors.
Why? You don't accept any arguments anyway.
 
hrenfx: There are always majors in any set of financial instruments, even if USD is not there.
Again own definitions. A major pair is only paired with a quid. Formally and logically: if the pair does not contain a quid, it is not a major.
 
Mathemat:
Own definitions again. A major pair is only paired with a quid. Formally and logically: if there is no quid in the pair, it is not a major.

A major is the one with the highest aggregate volume of transactions. That is, where the currency is mostly quoted.
 

The ruble, for example, is not even called a major at MICEX, even though it has the largest volumes there and is mostly quoted there. It is a worldwide notion, not a quotation place, and in fact it is all dollar pairs. A well-established term

 
Avals:

The ruble, for example, is not even called a major at MICEX, even though it has the largest volumes there and is mostly quoted there. It is a worldwide notion, not a quotation place, and in fact it is all dollar pairs. A well-established term


Ah man, got it all wrong. But I didn't call the ruble a major :)

1234567
New comment