That's interesting - page 19
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
Well, you're right, it's kind of a promise. So you take the pledge... OK, make it up.
Why can't you read the lines day by day instead of week by week? Every five days is a week.
Texanalysis is a broad notion that includes at least the basics of arithmetic. So you are denying arithmetic now?
Well, they did not deny it even in the Stone Age. :)
What makes you say that? I wrote that transitions between structures are analysed. And for each structure, the "transfer" of parameters is also evaluated.
Well, if you also transfer parameters, and at a random moment of time, then the structure of independent models proposed by you is even more complicated for analysis than just a single process with random parameters. What is the point of such a complication?
Well, how do you answer that. Rude - you will be offended, and culture, and seriously start discussing this nonsense with you, so it is a pity the time. Let's make it so - you as if did not write it, and I as if did not read it. :о)
to Farnsworth
Very similar to your Patterns in Patterns to my Flowing Patterns. I look forward to continuing.
And TA is rubbish. AA(alternative analyses) is forerunner. Hee hee. :)
Religious wars about TA again, girls? Let's not have one, let's really get tired of it.
Farnsworth, I can assure you that you are using real TA, for you are using rhythmetics. Also, as I suspect, you don't use FA. Well what's left is TA, but it's just very unconventional...
Not everything that uses rhythmetics is TA.
TA has a definition, who is interested, he may Google his interest.
If an analysis uses different underlying assumptions than TA (and there are richmetic everywhere you look), then it is not a technical analysis. And basta. That's my, imho'naya basta.
Sergey, please continue, don't get distracted.
Farnsworth, I can assure you that you are using a very real TA, .... Also, I suspect you are not using FA. Well, what's left is TA, but it's just very unconventional...
Oh, yeah! Mathemat, I don't use TA. I don't use TA at all! What is TA is on this site in the section, it's called that - "TA". It's all very detailed and correctly written. Let us call things by their proper names. It has absolutely nothing to do with management theory, estimation theory, econometrics or ...etc. Sorry, but I've never read that any spaceships were approached by "Technical Analysis" or a collider was controlled by TA.
because you use rhymmetics.
I assume, theoretically of course, that proctologists also use arithmetic in their professional work. Is that TA too?
Let's not make a big deal out of it, really, it's annoying.
What is really annoying is that common terms are no longer used for their intended purpose. They're being substituted by everyone else. I'm not in the business of attaching an ass with ears to a price figure - I'm in the business of technical analysis.
Don't spoil the mood.
. I was wondering, you've been on the forum since 2006. You're practically an axakal, so I'll have to address you more respectfully.
And in general I'm working with a tricky conversion, and there's some reason to believe that the resulting process is not martingale.
. Let's start from afar. The object you are trying to work with is a time series of prices. The only market characteristic that you are given to look at through the dc screen. I had to spend a lot of time (several years) and effort to make sure that the price shows the main characteristic of martingale - namely, that the best forecast for the next value is the current value. That said, still, price is not a classical martingale, but rather a special class of martingale (a martingale made of "pieces", plus general non-stationarity, plus something else), but it's not that important. For that reason, I don't hesitate to write, price ~= martingale. Martingale has one property, any "transformation" of a martingale results in a new martingale. To put it simply, no matter how you convert the price using clever methods, you will still end up with a series-martingale. And that means "50/50 minus the spread" (c) someone else's.
. Actually, what's written is very simplistic, just a principle. I'm not going to convince anyone, especially since the price is not a strict martingale, but this non-strictness does not allow to be better (or worse) than the "market average", adjusted for commission fees.
Fractal analysis and pnn network (recently bolted on) are used for classification.
. My attitude to efficient market theory and fractal market theory has already been stated on the forum. But both theories are a great way for authors to earn money on books, grants, articles, lectures, etc. Well, neural networks are just a mathematical apparatus, a tool.
Classification of structures is the hardest part and frankly, I can't boast of "beauty of lines"
The market will take it all back if any of the lucky traders stay in the market longer than necessary.
. It doesn't really matter, especially for people who haven't become "lucky" themselves yet. The methods and views are interesting.
But the analysis is nonsense and does not work. I cannot help but kick it on occasion. It is worthwhile.