The market is a controlled dynamic system. - page 155
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 sun rose and set and a group of enthusiasts searched and searched for a market management function...
The sun rose and set and a group of enthusiasts searched and searched for a market management function...
There is no such function and no one is looking for it.
Explanations have already been made.
There is no such function and no one is looking for it.
An explanation has already been given.
Why is it necessary to reconstruct the input signal?
If we know all the parameters of the output signal, is that not enough to predict it?
Simply by making a prediction of the output signal, we can calculate the error in the next step and use it to make a correction.
And there is nothing to check the input signal with, we can't see it.
This is where causality comes into play. The input signal always precedes the output signal. Therefore, knowledge of the input signal fundamentally changes not only the approach to predicting the output signal, but also the very understanding of the prediction.
Yes, I've already realised you're boiling potatoes here.
I agree, it's very primitive and not interesting.
Stupid and irrational.
And not deserving of an ounce of your attention.
Predates it, yes, but what good is it if we can't even know if we've recovered it correctly? The output signal is at least verifiable.
In this example - let's say the person turned on the cooker. Even if we have presumably reconstructed this input discrete signal, we have only its consequence (temperature) to analyse and can only confirm our hypothesis after some time (when it gets hot).
Predates it, yes, but what good is it if we can't even know if we've recovered it correctly? The output signal is at least verifiable.
In this example - let's say the person turned on the cooker. Even if we have supposedly recovered this input discrete signal, we have only its consequence (temperature) for analysis, and we will be able to confirm our hypothesis only after some time (when it gets hot).
The recovery problem belongs to the class of inverse problems of dynamics. And these problems belong to the class of incorrect problems. But it does not mean that they have no solution.
And in the tile example, to solve the inverse problem it is more convenient to consider the heater temperature as the control signal.
But that doesn't mean they don't have a solution.
It's understandable, there may be a solution. It just seems to me that it is enough for prediction that we have an output signal, and there is no need to look for an input signal.
Let me try to explain. Cooking potatoes always follows roughly the same temperature curve. The pan is the same, the volume of potatoes is the same, the dinner time is roughly the same. If we find that the temperature suddenly rises significantly, the whole further process is predicted with good accuracy - we can say that in about 30 minutes the temperature will start to drop.
But if a person suddenly had to run to the shop to buy vodka, and he turned off the cooker in the middle of the process (and when he comes back - will continue), then no way we can guess this input signal, and in any case we will know about it only after the temperature drops significantly.
For the inverse problem, it is more convenient to consider the heater temperature as the control signal.
Here, I've already stopped understanding anything :)
But if a person suddenly feels the need to run to the shop for vodka
it is more convenient to consider the heater temperature as the control signal for the inverse problem.
Here, I've already stopped understanding anything :)
The discrete mode switch values are a substantially non-linear function.
The heater is a linear link.