The market is a controlled dynamic system. - page 86
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
If your tractor really has an Edge, in my hands it would probably already be bringing in miles, well many thousands a month at least.
Many proverbs and sayings come to mind here... ;)))
Many proverbs and sayings come to mind here... ;)))
I wonder if many have come to realise that "the box just opened", even before the hammering?
;)))
A theorem, you say? ;)))
Look it up. It would be very interesting to have a look. Who's the author?
I'm telling you. And don't giggle. It's not a funny theorem.
I am the author. The proof is lost for now. And the Theorem is there.
// By the way, it deserves to be capitalized... Especially for you. I hope I haven't forgotten...
;-)
I say. And there's no need to giggle. It's not a funny theorem.
I wrote it. The proof's gone while we're talking. And the theorem is there.
// By the way, it deserves to be capitalized... Especially for you. I hope I haven't forgotten...
;-)
Volodya, Theorema needs a name. Or at least a number. (Eighteen is already taken).
Volodya, the Theorem needs a name. Or at least a number. (Eighteen is already taken)
The Million Percent Theorem :)
By the way, even Crenfix fits under it, because the drawdown on the account reached something like 90-95%.
Volodya, the theorem needs a name. Or at least a number. (Eighteen is already taken).
"The tachyon breakdown theorem" // OK? Ж-)
Formulation:
The fixation of the control vector in the interaction of two or more systems inevitably leads to a spontaneous avalanche-like inversion of the vector, with the inversion being fixed for the time needed to eliminate the information-energy imbalances resulting from the initial fixation.
// I think it's quite fundamental. Epic, sound.
;) ;) ;)
>
And the interrelationship of cause and effect has been discussed before, but has not been understood...
You are talking about forecasting ahead. At the same time the task is: "To determine a Z-effect on the basis of a Y-cause".
I'm asking a different question: "Determine the X-cause leading to the Y-effect."
See the difference?
.
Let me explain a little more broadly:
At the moment we have some event Y -- its clear numerical value.
Then this event Y can be viewed in two ways:
1) event Y is the cause of some event Z in the future; here Y is the cause and Z is the effect;
2) event Y is the consequence of some event X in the past; here X is the cause and Y is the effect;
In both variants only event Y is credible, we have no credible knowledge about either event Z or event X.
X ---> Y ---> Z
Such is the manifestation of reality.
And the interrelationship of cause and effect has been discussed before, but has not been understood...
You are talking about forecasting ahead. At the same time the task is: "To determine a Z-effect on the basis of a Y-cause".
I'm asking a different question: "Determine the X-cause leading to the Y-effect."
Do you see the difference?
Oleg, there is no contradiction here. Without solving the second problem (yours), the first one cannot be solved.
They are simply two stages of the same problem.
Stage 1: "Determine the X-cause leading to the Y-effect".
Although determining the cause of the 1st stage is not enough to solve the 2nd stage problem.
Step 2: Using the results of step 1 - "Determine Z-effect based on Y-cause".
Separately, both tasks are a waste of time