Random probability theory. Napalm continues! - page 26
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
Well, then it's hard to find anything to discuss.
You have a postulate - "a tendency to change states". I cannot agree with it - if only because it is not primary.
Stability in the sense of the probability of each state is primary. Your "state-changing tendency" follows from it: after 1000 consecutive tails the probability that a state will change (not on a given roll, but in a series in which there are already 1000 tails) is higher. The probabilities of any series of a given length of ones and zeros are the same: a coin has no memory, and only series have it.
But this resilience does not follow from your tendency to change states.
you see, talking and doing are not the same thing. for example, I get that and so will you...
Tell me what you've done. You're not just pouting.
Maybe you posted some indicators so I'd at least have some respect for you.
And I can send you shit pictures of you, too, huh?
Well, I have come to understand the definition of the market through volatility on my own, I can hardly give it to you in words, but I think Pastukhov has a better one ))
You are interested in my definition of the volatility dimension, which is used to measure a trend-flat?
I wasn't talking about that. I was saying that there is a certain statistically determined value (not constant!) that has certain limits, by the value of which at its extreme values the market's accumulated potential for a rally can be identified.
If there is an accumulation - we wait for a discharge.
Shall we discuss the calculation of H-volatility or not?
Well, I've scared off another one, I can put another tick on the list of victims of H-volatility.
Whenever I talk about it, everyone disappears into a whirlpool ))))
what's there to talk about? The topic has been discussed on many forums.
What are you all fighting about?
Theorver is crap.
Statistics is crap.
Econometrics is crap.
.
Long live the people who rule the market wherever they want!!!
Tell me what you've done. Besides pouting.
Maybe you posted some indicators so I'd at least have some respect for you.
I can send you shit pictures of the faq too, eh?
after i did it, i realised i was blowing my nose. there's nothing wrong with that. everyone's been through it. you, for instance, are going through it.
if you're asking me to tell you, I can respond in your own words to a similar suggestion from the forum.
I don't give a damn about your respect... as long as you don't throw me into a thorn bush.)
I expressed my attitude towards you with two pictures and you only confirmed it with a screenshot from the demo.
Well then, it's hard to find anything to discuss.
You have a postulate - "a tendency to change states". I cannot agree with it - if only because it is not primary.
Stability in the sense of the probability of each state is primary. Your "state-changing tendency" follows from it: after 1000 consecutive tails the probability of a state changing (not in a given roll, but in a series in which there are already 1000 tails) is higher. And the probabilities of any series of a given length of ones and zeros are the same: a coin has no memory, and only series have it.
But this stability does not follow from your tendency to change states.
oh, finally some respectable people have stopped by. at least you have a good sense of humor, as i remember ))
i was trying to push the idea that a coin is a special case where we compress the range. take the cube example. the probability of repeating the previous state is less than any other, right? well, now let us imagine that there is no limit to variants at all. won't object's desire to change state become obvious? after all probability to stay at previous state will be 1/number of variants ?
and also - if state does not change, then maybe it undermines the very assumption that the sequence is random?
maybe there is a tendency-trend in this case? But isn't it subjective? Does it depend on the length of series?
for example if 100 zeros in a series of 10000 is a pure chance, then in a series of 110 it will be a clear tendency, and the probability of chance will be questioned, probability of trend increases many times.
But what about this idea - depending on a sequence variant, besides random distribution of colours and number of trend changes, there is a probability of random process. complicated, eh? :-))))))
What's there to talk about? The topic has been discussed on many forums.
There is a suggestion that it should not be shielded as it is on many forums. Even Neutron counted it, but didn't find it, although I may have found it later.
after I did it, I realised that I was "cheek-blowing". there's nothing wrong with that. everyone's been through it. you, for instance, are going through it.
If you offer to tell me, I can respond in your own words to a similar sentence from a forum member.
I don't give a damn about your respect... as long as you don't throw it into a thorn bush)
I expressed my attitude towards you with two pictures and you only confirmed it with a screenshot from the demo.
* throws you into a thorn bush *
your pictures tell the whole story.
But not everyone is rude by definition. I wasn't rude to you. Just so you know.
oh, finally some respectable people have stopped by. at least you have a good sense of humour, as i recall ))
I was trying to push the idea that a coin is a special case where we compress the range. take the cube example. the probability of repeating the previous state is less than any other, right? well now let's imagine that there are no options at all. wouldn't the object's desire to change state become obvious? because the probability of staying in the previous place would be 1/kol-n_variants ?
and also - if a state does not change, then maybe it undermines the very assumption that the sequence is random?
Maybe in this case there is a trend? But isn't it subjective? Does it depend on the length of series in question?
Let's say, if 100 zeros in a series of 10000 is just an admissible chance, then in a series of 110 it will be a clear tendency, and here the probability of chance (um... got it right? :-) ) will rather be questioned, and the probability of a trend increases many times.
How about this thought - depending on variant of sequence, there is (besides random distribution of colours and number of trend change) probability of randomness of the process/trend. I.e. in extreme cases probability of randomness of the series (oh how!) is close to zero, but on the contrary, probability of trend tends to one... complicated, eh? :-))))))
If you count probabilities from sides of the cube, and calculate all outcomes relative to a certain side, it's probably a bit different. jumping around from side to side in the cube, you can probably see something.