Forget random quotes - page 16
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
And the global financial crises are vivid proof of the time-dependence of prices. In 10,000 years you won't get the kind of dramatic collapses that we see in the real markets on "unremembered" rows.
If you don't like the equilibrium price, you can replace it with the more fashionable synonym "fair" price. They just tried to question the law of supply and demand, for which the Nobel Prize in economics was awarded to Engel in the 10th year (among others).
To be even more suggestive, I would suggest recalling some proper quotation from Aristotle, or, I don't know, Ceceron.
Professor, put your (18) aside at least for a while, haggle a normal market - after a while you will see for yourself. And about a fair price, too. And you will see the manipulation (not in the abusive sense, but in the sense of price management) and so on.
The law of supply and demand is still there, but it doesn't work the way the books describe it. ;) We are talking about the modern stock market, not small retail, for example.
Oh, come on. The causal relationship between price and time has already been discussed many times, including in the Hearst index thread. There are sufficiently serious works (read Peters), which directly states that the price, though in a weak form, but depends on time. Reread the last pages of the above thread. There I did some independent research with my methods, which confirms the deterministic nature of price behavior. Determinism detection is based on the simple principle of particle dispersion. If the particle does not remember its past state, the distance travelled by it will converge to the square root of N steps or N^0.5. But if the degree is qualitatively different from 0.5 - then we are dealing with a definite time dependence, because in order to travel a longer (or shorter) distance the particle must remember its "past" state to make a move in the same (or backward) direction. And this is the time dependence. And rather non-trivial statistical methods for all markets obtain characteristics of this dispersion qualitatively different from white noise indicating a clear time dependence of the studied series.
No, no, I stopped comparing prices with particles and stuff a long time ago. It's all nonsense, if you ask me. Completely different processes.
Why "the other way round"? That's what C-4 is telling you. Or do you think that market memory is just evidence that time is not a significant factor in pricing?
To make it even more impressive, I would suggest that you remember a quote from Aristotle or, I don't know, Ceceron.
Professor, put your (18) aside at least for a while, haggle a normal market - after a while you will see for yourself. And about a fair price, too. And you will see the manipulation (not in the abusive sense, but in the sense of price management) and so on.
The law of supply and demand is still there, but it doesn't work the way the books describe it. ;) We are talking about the modern stock market, not small retail, for example.
Processes may be different, but any system is described by the phase space and the ways of description are always the same. And often the kind of equations are similar too. So all is not lost here)
It's hard to argue, many equations from different fields of physics are like twins, only the meaning of the variables changes. :) But in this case, price motion and particle motion, this is my deep imho, are very different.
Of course, nothing prevents everyone here from having their own imho on this. The market is such an environment that completely different approaches are often valid (profitable) at the same time.
Correct, the last version of the TS focuses only on the presence of movement, (18) is involved. only not by quantitative, but by qualitative prediction. Unfortunately, it works well only in counter-trend and flat. What to do in the case of a trend - I do not know yet. If I try to work with trend, it reverses too late and eats my hard-earned profit. In the counter-trend - it does not miss anything. Dives in and out of the market at the same price. I guess you get the idea.
The question of time is fundamental to all knowledge today.
Our knowledge is based on the notion of identity: object A is identically equal to itself.
But this is not entirely true. This dead formula does not take into account that some time has passed since the identity formula was written and object A has evolved during this time and is not quite equal to itself.
I was taught this a long time ago and I don't forget it for a minute.
Time must always be kept in mind and if we do not take it into account as an argument, there must be good reason for it.
Case in point.
The sacred cow of this forum is non redrawing indicators. Since my first acquaintance with indicators, I have not seen the value of non-transforming indicators under the influence of timekeeping ideas. An indicator is a kind of market view. Naturally, when a new bar comes, this view should be changed. There is a new bar in the market and it is a different market and there should be a different valuation for it, which may not coincide with the previous one.
People who ignore time are foaming at the mouth to defend their sacred cow. Those, who remember that the market always depends on the time and the functional dependence on the time is only a matter of a particular model, prefer indicators that take into account the latest information, and whether they redraw or not is a secondary issue and not very important at all. What is important is the essence of the indicator and not its past appearance.
So HideYourRichess hasa methodological inaccuracy, based on a misunderstanding of the role of time itself.