Randomness of price values - page 11
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 fact, it seems that the relationships between the theories (Lamarck vs Darwin) and (Einstein vs Heisenberg) are perfectly isomorphic. I marvel, but the resemblance is striking.
I misspoke. That is correct:
"In fact, the correlations between the philosophies (Lamarck vs Darwin) and (Einstein vs Heisenberg) seem to be perfectly isomorphic. I marvel, but the resemblance is striking."
To the corrected one, to the corrected one, to the corrected one, to the corrected one, to the corrected one. // But without fanaticism, please.
--
Let me explain... ...... It's fine without the explanation, though.
:)
I misspoke. That is correct:
"In fact, the correlations between the philosophies (Lamarck vs Darwin) and (Einstein vs Heisenberg) seem to be perfectly isomorphic. I marvel, but the resemblance is striking."
To the Corrected One, to believe wholeheartedly. // But without fanaticism, please.
--
Let me explain... ...... It's fine without the explanation, though.
:)
But Mendel, he didn't try his hand at the Marxist-Leninist...
And the 48th Historical Session of VASKHNIL was not just for fun.
But it would be nice to summarize, as would the insanely quoted article by Slutsky, to make it available.
Maybe someone has access to Leninka?
;)
What is Lamarck? In a nutshell, please.
I'm waiting for Dr-Fedor to tell me how to google it...
95% trustworthy of his post.
Lamarck - what is that? In two words, please. In three, please, with a little scientific swearing.
Yeah, looked it up on Wiki. I didn't see any isomorphism, to be honest. Except that Lamarck seems to have more regularities and less randomness.
P.S. Another point: Lamarck's theory is sort of a stepping stone to Darwin's theory, while STO is not a stepping stone to quantum mechanics at all.
men and girls, no offence, but you're taking it too far!!!! it's much simpler than that.....
price is the end product and it's just impossible to find a correlation, no matter how much you fuck with it.....!!!!!!
and all indicators are just self-defeating, which are based on tehanalysis (trying to determine on the past future price movements, and as a filter maybe
make sense, but far from perfect)
if you have developed algorithms for data packaging, you know that if you try too hard to squeeze it, you will lose quality....
just like in sound, you can crush it so that you can't understand anything !!!! so there are too many factors influencing the price movement
and as a result, they cannot be deciphered (squeezed too hard), the only way is fundamental ......
more probability
I already said that the filters can partially solve the problem (about 30 - 60% and well, the tricks like martin, anti-martin and under-martin with different
algorithms) but to achieve maximal effect we need dynamic filter !!!!!
and probably 99% only static!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! posted here, so you're digging in the wrong place .....
Yeah, looked it up on Wiki. Didn't see any isomorphism, to be honest. Except that Lamarck seems to have more regularities and less randomness.
P.S. Another point: Lamarck's theory is sort of a stepping stone to Darwin's theory, while STO is not a stepping stone to quantum mechanics at all.
In a nutshell.
Lamarck's main trick is the hypothesis of the inheritance of acquired traits. It has not been confirmed experimentally. Much to the dismay of the proponents of "continuous causation".
Neither is Einstein's philosophy (not to be confused with GTR), according to which "God does not play dice".
Taki plays. It's a fundamental principle of evolution. Only not in dice, but in everything (as far as living systems are concerned. including forex).
which Taleb talks about in "Fooled by Randomness".