What form, let's assume a physical body, does time have? Your opinion. - page 15
![MQL5 - Language of trade strategies built-in the MetaTrader 5 client terminal](https://c.mql5.com/i/registerlandings/logo-2.png)
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
The interesting thing is that all three statements are true.
The concept of time is not discontinuous with the concept of change in the characteristics of the object in question. In general, if the object will not have any characteristics, then the concept of time is not applicable to it.
Each currency must be on its own plane and the data must be 'prepared' for the sphere, it must fit within the limits and not go beyond them.
If you can. Explain the second paragraph. Thank you.
normalisation.
Let's apply this case to forex. A slice of history lies... at any point in time. Who sees it. Units.
Who, for example, wrote down - has a history, who did not have time ... come on.
When applied to price charts, it seems to me that crosses-zeros are relevant, where the size of the "box" is the trader's time horizon. For example: euro/dollar = 2.0 ? Is it possible?! Sure. But when?
Thus, we get that the main thing is the trader's desires (his goals). According to .
normalisation.
You must have said thank you in advance:)))
only the second one makes sense, the rest are a bunch of words
Well, that's just your very private opinion. To the best of your comprehension.
And the second is simply the most obvious, the most straightforwardly limited, so to speak. But that's the thing, the truth is far from obvious. Otherwise, there would have been nothing to know a long time ago.
The interesting thing is that all three statements are true.
Yuri, please explain this:
There's what's not there and there's what's not there.
I don't think I can drink that much... I used to be able to... :о(
It's elementary, Watson! I mean, Frasworth.
Understand it all in the Buddhist sense and you will have complete clarity.
Don't take this as rubbish, but it comes to mind: