The definitive one hundred percent, post. - page 4
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
...
SProgrammer:
...
SProgrammer:...
SProgrammer:...
SProgrammer:...
SProgrammer:...
SProgrammer:...
SProgrammer:...
It's not about banter or arrogance, it's about outlook and philosophy if you will. Let me explain. The world we live in is governed by certain laws. What follows from this - 1) If we do not know some laws, it does not mean that they do not exist; 2) if we invent and establish (impose) our own laws, they will not work. In this connection, two ways of cognition appeared - western scholasticism and eastern Greek theoria, from which the word theory originated. The first way of cognition means splitting the whole into parts, in order to know afterwards how everything works. That is a subject-object analysis. The second way of cognition is merging with the object of cognition. That is object-object analysis. The first way is the way of western TA, the way of quantum physics and other nonsense. This way to nowhere, which leads only to a swamp of even smaller particles and details. This is the analysis that this entire forum is dedicated to. An example of the second way is, oddly enough, Japanese candlesticks. This is so far the only attempt (maybe not entirely successful) to look at the market from the object-object view. and which, by the way, still stands apart from all the questionable theories of making profit that emerge in the West. )))
I absolutely agree, but it is necessary to merge with the whole object, not with its separate parts.
The first way is the way of Western TA, the way of quantum physics and other nonsense. This is a path to nowhere, which leads only to a swamp of even smaller particularities and details. This is the analysis that this entire forum is dedicated to. An example of the second way is, oddly enough, Japanese candlesticks.
Quantum physics is not nonsense, it is the reality of this world. If the processes that occur in the quantum world cannot be described by conventional logic, it does not mean that it is nonsense.
Can you explain why the analysis of Japanese candlesticks is fundamentally different from the TA you dislike so much?
You need both approaches: from the general to the particular and from the particular to the general. They are complementary and inseparable.
I don't want to be obtrusive, but it seems your leaving is taking too long.
:) There's a topic over there. How to turn a uniform distribution into a normal distribution.
Prove you know something about the theoretician, tell me how to do it. :) Instead of getting upset.
==
I'll tell you right away that Math didn't ask me why I need a normal distribution - I know how to do it, but usually those who don't understand the theorem don't know it. :)
It's not about banter or arrogance, it's about outlook and philosophy if you will. Let me explain. The world we live in is subject to certain laws. What follows from this - 1) If we do not know some laws, it does not mean that they do not exist, 2) if we invent and set (impose) our own laws, they will not work. In this connection, two ways of cognition emerged - Western scholasticism and Eastern Greek theoria, from which the word theory originated. The first way of cognition means splitting the whole into parts, in order to know afterwards how everything works. That is a subject-object analysis. The second way of cognition is merging with the object of cognition. That is object-object analysis. The first way is the way of western TA, the way of quantum physics and other delirium. This way to nowhere, which leads only to a swamp of even smaller particles and details. This is the analysis that this entire forum is dedicated to. An example of the second way is, oddly enough, Japanese candlesticks. This is so far the only attempt (maybe not entirely successful) to look at the market from the object-object view. and which, by the way, still stands apart from all the questionable theories of making profit that emerge in the West. )))
But the highlighted lie is confusing. Is that an axiom?
It's not about banter or arrogance, it's about outlook and philosophy, if you like. Let me explain. The world we live in is subject to certain laws. What follows from this - 1) If we do not know some laws, it does not mean that they do not exist, 2) if we invent and set (impose) our own laws, they will not work. In this connection, two ways of cognition emerged - Western scholasticism and Eastern Greek theoria, from which the word theory originated. The first way of cognition means splitting the whole into parts, in order to know afterwards how everything works. That is a subject-object analysis. The second way of cognition is merging with the object of cognition. That is object-object analysis. The first way is the way of western TA, the way of quantum physics and other crap. This way to nowhere, which leads only to a swamp of even smaller particles and details. This is the analysis that this entire forum is dedicated to. An example of the second way is, oddly enough, Japanese candlesticks. This is so far the only attempt (maybe not entirely successful) to look at the market from the object-object view. and which, by the way, still stands apart from all the questionable theories of making profit that emerge in the West. )))
did not get it. I read it once. I usually get it right away... :-)
Is this some kind of philosophy or something?
It's not a matter of banter or arrogance, but of outlook and philosophy, if you will. Let me explain. The world we live in is subject to certain laws. What follows from this - 1) If we do not know some laws, it does not mean that they do not exist, 2) if we invent and set (impose) our own laws, they will not work. In this connection, two ways of cognition emerged - Western scholasticism and Eastern Greek theoria, from which the word theory originated. The first way of cognition means splitting the whole into parts, in order to know afterwards how everything works. That is a subject-object analysis. The second way of cognition is merging with the object of cognition. That is object-object analysis. The first way is the way of western TA, the way of quantum physics and other crap. This way to nowhere, which leads only to a swamp of even smaller particles and details. This is the analysis that this entire forum is dedicated to. An example of the second way is, oddly enough, Japanese candlesticks. This is so far the only attempt (maybe not entirely successful) to look at the market from the object-object view. and which, by the way, still stands apart from all the questionable theories of making profit that emerge in the West. )))
after the second time - got it.
The question arises - where is the clear criterion for separating subject-object and object-object analysis? How does it (this distinction) - more specifically - manifest itself in margin trading?
I'll tell you right off the bat that Math didn't ask me why I need a normal distribution - I know how to do it, but usually those who have little understanding of theoretical theory don't know it. :)
Oh, I see, you're nickname is ivandurak's purposely, as if from another character - a fool to ask stupid questions. But why do you need it? And the question is not clear. Do you need finite normal distributed dispersions? So it's more to do with programming techniques than theoretical belief. Genre wander rand S series of N steps, each S series will be a normally distributed variance, and their mean S.C.O. will be the square of N.
By the way, it's 11:00 forum time and you're still here.
Oh, I see, you have a nickname ivandurak on purpose, as if from another character - a fool - to ask stupid questions. But why would you do that? And the question is not clear. Do you need finite normal distributed dispersions? So it's more to do with programming techniques than theoretical belief. Genre wander rand S series of N steps, each S series will be a normally distributed variance, and their mean S.C.O. will be the square of N.
By the way, it's 11:00 forum time and you're still here.
Paranoia.
I'll go 200%, don't you worry.
You better go show me how great you are at terver. :)
Paranoia.
I'll go 200%, don't you worry.
You better go show me how good you are at terver. :)
As you were a whistleblower with a whistleblower, you still are. As a cheap pontoon, but as a programmer yourself, you have not written a single article or code into the database, and you continue with your empty pontooning.
As you have been diverting the conversation, you are still diverting it.
Is there any chance of you keeping your promise to leave?
Two hours ago, it was 100%. I haven't gone anywhere, but now it's 200%. It'll be over 1000% by the end of the day.
The simple question is, when are you gonna quit? Don't change the subject.