The market is a controlled dynamic system. - page 143

New comment
 
MetaDriver:

You're both being petty. Look at the root.


Continued: http://youtu.be/ClFdYeo6kj4


What's this about?
 

Yusuf, I have previously said that I have a lot of doubts about the process of normalising the EOR process per unit that you are introducing. Now I am quite convinced in this opinion.

As a result I will say that in your construction of EOR there is no external force as a continuously acting factor.

But you should deal with it more carefully as it is a source of errors.

The whole complex of PNB is built on element H. But this element H is the reaction of the system to the external force acting at that moment. Extrapolation B takes into account only this reaction as if "switching off" the external force, i.e. the external force F(t,x,dx,ddx,...), which depends on many factors, including time, in your construction is not even simply "frozen" at the previous level that would suggest its further influence on the system (though distorted), but it is excluded from consideration at all, being taken as equal to zero.

Schematically:

Y(t,x,dx,ddx,...) = F(t,x,dx,ddx,...)

Y(t,x,dx,ddx,...) = const

Y(t,x,dx,ddx,...) = 0

So, again, you just have to delineate the boundaries of applicability of the PNB model you built.

 
avtomat:

What's that about?
You'll understand in about a year. // Yusuf seems a little sooner.
 
MetaDriver:
You'll understand in about a year. // Yusuf seems a little sooner.


Am I really that dumb that it takes a year?

;))))))

 
avtomat:


Am I really so stupid that it's going to take a year?

You're too smart. "The cup is overflowing."
 
avtomat:

Yusuf, I have previously said that I have a lot of doubts about the process of normalising the EOR process per unit that you are introducing. Now I am quite convinced in this opinion.

As a result I will say that in your construction of EOR there is no external force as a continuously acting factor.

But you should deal with it more carefully as it is a source of errors.

The whole complex of PNB is built on element H. But this element H is the reaction of the system to the external force acting at that moment. Extrapolation B takes into account only this reaction as if "switching off" the external force, i.e. the external force F(t,x,dx,ddx,...), which depends on many factors, including time, in your construction is not even simply "frozen" at the previous level, which would imply its further action on the system (although distorted), but it is excluded from consideration at all, being assumed equal to zero.

Schematically:

Y(t,x,dx,ddx,...) = F(t,x,dx,ddx,...)

Y(t,x,dx,ddx,...) = const

Y(t,x,dx,ddx,...) = 0

So, again, you just have to delineate the boundaries of applicability of the PNB model you built.

1.I have shown you that the normalization procedure is not my whim, but the recognition of the fact that we consider a single (single) process from beginning to end, i.e., this is the limit value of the integral. and the normalization procedure as a division by G(n+1) appears in connection with the appearance of the non-personal integral as the Euler Gamma function http://www.aup.ru/books/m155/4_16.htm.

2. It is just implied that the destabilisation of the system and the emergence of a new process is due to an external force, as stated in the paper. However, it is true that in the further development and decay of the process in question, no other external force is assumed to be acting on the system. I had originally intended to consider the possibility of multiple external forces, but decided to deal first with the action of a single external force. Later on we can try to consider the case of multiple forces that are separated by the difference in time, if we can put it that way.

 
MetaDriver:
You're too clever. "The cup is overflowing."


Yeah... the circle is closed?

;)))))

 
yosuf:

1.I have shown you that the normalisation procedure is not a whim of mine, but a recognition of the fact that we are looking at a single (single) process from beginning to end, i.e., it is the limit of the integral.



That's where the error lies - that's where you cut off the external influence.
 
avtomat:

This is where the mistake lies - you're cutting off the external force here.
Exactly right, we are considering the action of the original external force, for the sake of simplifying the problem. Prove that there is a need to complicate the problem and the inevitability of taking into account additional external forces. Actually, I suspect that the function derived from the bounded condition of action of only one external force somehow, mysteriously, began to take into account the effects of additional external forces by changing values of its parameters. Think about this assumption. For example, if at first you feed a linear dependence to input function P and then connect a parabola, as another external force, or a hyperbola, direct and/or inverse exponent, it (P), as if nothing happened, gives the final result with mathematical accuracy. How to explain this curiosity, if not the fantastic ability of the function P to adapt to the influence of additional external forces? This phenomenon, I think, should be studied in detail by specialists in mathematics. There is a suspicion that there is only one function in nature, which can be called a function of nature, replacing all functions known to us. Caution in judgement is needed here. But, I am confronted with the fact and am puzzled. So far I have proved that P can replace: straight line, parabola, hyperbola, exponent and their combinations, tangent, quarter sine.
 
avtomat:

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.

1...136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150...551
New comment