Dependency statistics in quotes (information theory, correlation and other feature selection methods) - page 40
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
We don't know if there is any noise at all. At this point, it has not been proven. Why would you breed an entity and then look for it?!
OK, let me be more specific.I certainly don't have a strictly mathematical proof, but nevertheless I suppose you don't have that proof either, that TA is described strictly by mathematical methods and models.
You have no proof in formulas of TA consistency, you have only results that say it is consistent, only by experience.
Creation had at one time only empirical proof, he had no mate proof and no causality. He didn't need them, he didn't need them, he didn't need to understand WHY the stat advantage pops up, in order to take advantage of it and pull it by the ears, strengthening it, but making it rare at the same time.
You are demanding proof of randomness from the opponents.
Attention question. Do you yourself have proof of non-randomness, mathematically? After all, there is no limit to the number of experiments on which you base such questions, when you can count a certain number of test results as a proof barrier.
"Strictly mathematical proof I certainly don't have, but nevertheless this proof I assume you don't have either, that TA is described strictly by mathematical methods and models."
Still, it's not a question, it's an assertion. Once again I have heard your opinion.
"The same Creation had only empirical proofs at one time, he had no mat proofs or causality. And he didn't need them, he was not hampered by NOT understanding WHY stat advantages pop up, in order to take advantage of that advantage and pull it by the ears, reinforcing it, but also making it rare."
What is the point of you and I guessing at the thoughts and actions of a third party!
"You are demanding proof of randomness from the opponents."
Alexei laid out the information. In the scientific world it is customary to ask questions when something is not clear. I don't understand. I ask. Alexey answers them as he thinks fit.
I am not demanding, I am not standing with a knife at my throat. The person is interested in a different opinion, so we have a dialogue.
We have reached a stage of "peace, friendship, chewing gum". Your outsider's view of our communication does not yet confirm your statements, don't you think ;)
"Attention question. Do you yourself have a proof of non-randomness, a mathematical one ? After all, there is no limit to the number of experiments on which you base such questions, when you can count a certain number of test results as a proof barrier."
Attention answer !
Why show me proof of something I don't observe or apply anywhere? Have you seen randomness in TA? Have you encountered noise?
I will be happy to answer some of your questions. But let's do it later and in another thread. Here we are discussing a specific method.
I would like to make it clear that I am using my own math tool for convenience and clarity. Not more. If my charts lead away and distract me, then I will try to do with words.
As you feel more comfortable.
Let's, while we haven't looked at the analytical model as such, not get into its trading. "Trading" is obviously getting ahead of itself. Which is premature. Trading is not yet clear on what.
Based on this post it wasn't clear whether you are proposing a model and explaining it, or suggesting that "someone" is "expressing their model". Is the first assumption probably correct?
Based on this post it wasn't clear whether you were proposing a model and explaining it, or suggesting that "someone" is "expressing their model". Is the first assumption probably correct?
I was referring to the model proposed by Alexei. Most people here probably understand it, but I'm still "swimming".
Me too... "floating"... Maybe "someone else"? Could you voice your "questions about the model to Alexey? As a point of reference for moving forward.
"Strictly mathematical proof of course I don't have, but nevertheless I suppose you don't have this proof either, that TA is described strictly by mathematical methods and models".
Still, it's not a question, it's an assertion. Once again I have heard your opinion.
"The same Creation had only empirical proofs at one time, he had no mat proofs or causality. And he didn't need them, he was not hampered by NOT understanding WHY stat advantages pop up, in order to take advantage of that advantage and pull it by the ears, reinforcing it, but also making it rare."
What is the point of you and I guessing at the thoughts and actions of a third party!
"You are demanding proof of randomness from the opponents."
Alexei laid out the information. In the scientific world it is customary to ask questions when something is not clear. I don't understand. I ask. Alexey answers them as he thinks fit.
I am not demanding, I am not standing with a knife at my throat. The person is interested in a different opinion, so we have a dialogue.
We have reached a stage of "peace, friendship, chewing gum". Your outside view of our communication does not yet support your claims, don't you think ;)
"."
Attention reply!
Why should I be presented with evidence that I don't observe or apply anywhere? Have you seen randomness in TA? Have you encountered noise?
How to understand your works people, if you are not understood in the simplest post, what else Alexey, and what does he and the information put out by him have to do with it? How is this even relevant to my post? Don't bring me into other people's posts as well))).
I`ll have to cut the gist of the question to a minimum. Attention question. Do you yourself have a proof of non-randomness, a mathematical one ? After all, there is no limit to the number of experiments on which you base such questions, when you can count a certain number of test results as a proof barrier.
PS: Please note that your
Attention response!!!
Why would I present evidence for something I don't observe or apply anywhere? Have you seen randomness in TA? Have you encountered noise?
An answer is not an answer, besides it is not decent to answer a question with a question. ))))))))
Probably "non-randomness of quotes" you mean?
What do quotes have to do with it if it works on PRNG as well? Please don't throw around the phrase "the gpsf was rubbish". I'm sure it has been tested on a variety of gpshs of different complexity.
"Calm down! Only calm!"
We are probably in a phase where we don't have to fear that "...if you're being cheated on, it's from the heart" (c).