The market is a controlled dynamic system. - page 144
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
Quite right, we are considering the action of the original external force, for the sake of simplicity.
It is more correct to say: one of the subtasks in the general problem. But it opens a way for reconstruction (definition, approximation) of the external force.
Incidentally, such an external force is referred to in UDF terms as a control.
Here's the thing -- a smart man has doubts. Always.
"Too clever" is an understatement. You can't see the white light behind your clever formulas. That goes for both of us.
And not even being able to understand and realize that your current ceiling is the floor for some of the people advising you here.
it's like a cry from the soul ;)))
Prove that it became necessary to increase the complexity of the problem and the inevitability of taking into account additional external forces.
Well, what is there to prove... It's not about additional external forces. It is about the fact that you take a slice out of the always present variable external force and then this slice unreasonably spreads far into the future. The external force has time to change, but it is not reflected in the model in any way. But if that external force were to suddenly disappear somewhere, then one could assume that the process would develop roughly like the output of the NSP model (in its current version). But this, of course, is not the case. And a variable external force is always present. And so the model needs to be extended.
Well, what's there to prove... It's not about additional external forces. It is about taking a slice out of an always present variable external force and then unreasonably spreading that slice far into the future. The external force has time to change, but it is not reflected in the model in any way. But if that external force were to suddenly disappear somewhere, then one could assume that the process would develop roughly like the output of the NSP model (in its current version). But this, of course, is not the case. And a variable external force is always present. And so the model needs to be extended.
The point is not the direction of flow. The conventional representation of the flow of time can (and does) differ from culture to culture.
The unit of measurement should not affect the definition of Absolute Present Time. Because by definition it is relative.
There are more subtle attempts at definition. According to Einstein, for example, Present Time is the time interval between sending a test signal and receiving a response. Ping but our... :)
// Watch Kalinauskas to the end ! !!
The market is a controlled dynamic system
If you take the sabre, yes. И? And -- I mean, what? And then what? Is there a zeitgeist in that? It seems to be forgetting the point.
Okay. That's just me. Really unbanned. Hello, everyone who hasn't forgotten. :) Hi!
The market is a controlled dynamic system
If you take the sabre, yes. И? And -- I mean, what? And then what? Is there a zeitgeist in that? It seems to be forgetting the point.
Okay. That's just me. Really unbanned. Hello, everyone who hasn't forgotten. :) Hi!
The market is a controlled dynamic system.
If you take the sabre, yes. И? And - I mean - what? And then what? Is there a zeitgeist in that? It seems to be forgetting the point.
Okay. That's just me. Really unbanned. Hello, everyone who hasn't forgotten. :) Hi!
Hi.
The point is to find the point. ;))
fell asleep to it well! (good!).
That was fast. You didn't need a year. ;)) Good!!!
Don't you think that, in the light of the arguments I made above, PNB is capable of capturing the impact of a continuously changing external force by adequately changing its parameters? On the other hand, I'm not against expansion. Suggest options, then compare with the original PNB model.
Changing parameters could be arranged by incorporating an adaptation block. But then in this case there would be no need in H() definition block as it is present now in PNB model --- it will be enough to postulate basic structure, around which the adaptive dancing of parameters will occur. That is, it will no longer be an NNB, but something else.