Not the Grail, just a regular one - Bablokos!!! - page 115

New comment
 
Lastrer:
So, are there any theorists capable of solving the probabilities of a continuous series of a tails and the total number of b eagles in it? I'm ashamed to admit: pass.
There are no such experts here, because in a continuous series of any number of tails there are 0 eagles.
 
It's not funny, whoever needs it understands it, as the task was voiced before this post and explained afterwards. The unfortunate post has been corrected.
 
yosuf:
Understand another thing - forex is not exactly a random process. There is a pattern here that does not always manifest itself, but at the most inopportune moment, from our point of view.
I am taking part in a conversation about a random process for the sake of communication. My trading is built on completely different principles...
 
Yeah, two fucking theories, relativity and probability. One keeps us constantly in the framework of material connections, not allowing us to start from the fact that there are connections at higher levels (where relativity theory is naive to say the least) which predetermine the subsequent implicit (if to be in the framework of material macrocosm) material connections. And the other cuts in the bud those who are looking for these links, telling them that in random processes there are no regularities, but not stating that in fact such an idical SB in the real world is as ridiculous as the whole theory of relativity, and it can be obtained only in infinity. If there is one at all - the degree of randomness in the series, as a formula, I think it can only differ by the length of the series, the minimum required for the process of probability density accumulation, in other words, the degree of randomness of the series depends on how long the series needs to be in order to be positive. If we change this function slower than randomness degree function of series (or part of series), we will get reprogramming in form of..., in short, pattern accumulation function should be slower than randomness degree function of series.Or if more understandable, I read some information from man --------... M Here you will get what you already have in wave theory and in Adverse... There is a second way... Write an algorithm to find this slowly changing regularity and run it... But you need crazy computational power... You can say that these are options, let's say... But let's say that a weniggle of this formalisation yields a pattern that changes so slowly that you can safely ignore it... 100 years from now this pattern will also work fine...
 
Singapur:
Yeah, two fucking theories, relativity and probability. One keeps us constantly in the framework of material connections, not allowing us to start from the fact that there are connections at higher levels (where relativity theory is naive to say the least) which predetermine the subsequent implicit (if to be in the framework of material macrocosm) material connections. And the other cuts in the bud those who are looking for these links, telling them that in random processes there are no regularities, but not stating that in fact such an idical SB in the real world is as ridiculous as the whole theory of relativity, and it can be obtained only in infinity. If there is one at all - the degree of randomness in the series, as a formula, I think it can only differ by the length of the series, the minimum required for the process of probability density accumulation, in other words, the degree of randomness of the series depends on how long the series needs to be in order to be positive. If we change this function slower than randomness degree function of series (or part of series), we will get reprogramming in form of..., short, pattern accumulation function should be slower than randomness degree function of series.Or if more understandable, I read it from --------... Suppose there is a pattern that changes smoothly... M Here you will get what you already have in wave theory and in Adverse... There is a second way... Write an algorithm to find this slowly changing regularity and run it... But you need crazy computational power... You can say that these are options, let's say... But let's say that a weniggle of this formalisation yields a pattern that changes so slowly that you can safely ignore it... 100 years from now this pattern will also work fine...
I thought I was the only drunk today because I don't understand these obvious things.
 
These changes in the pattern of regularity recall speed, acceleration, etc., i.e. second, third and further derivatives, to put it in mathematical terms
 
yosuf:
I thought I was the only one who was drunk today because I don't get these obvious things.
This one doesn't need a drink. He's a lifelong "pisser."
 
Repeatedly linked to Northwind, so in one of his links I read the following, the man recently reminded me of it a couple of pages ago. That a coin can win out over another coin. Playing both coin and trend game at the same time, even a 40 degree straight line, so playing this straight line, when the fallout is deterministic, and playing coin, is equivalent to playing one penny. And if you play 2 coins, one of which is bent, same thing. But how to determine the degree of bend of a coin, it can be bent in the direction of eagle or in the direction of tails, and even the angle of bend is different, just no point constant relative to which you can count the bend, but maybe the opposite look for a point such that for a given degree of bend this bend was about constant, that is not changing over time much. Or if both coins are bent, then how to determine the charretists of these 2 dynamic wanderings with drift, if also the bent varies. Probably should stop at the unchanging bendiness of the coins first. PS:TU prikolnyjkent, stop parroting about coins having no memory. I said once, that's enough, here are not sheep. you here are in particulary how mathematically determine the fact of coin bend? boundary definitions (the number of counts)? and procheet And yet I wrote about time not in vain, the sign of the difference in increments are the time of these increments, that is analysisvremeni between patterns is also not superfluous. And we should not wait for the magic from that file; it is clear that there are more outcomes than IRs, but we can continue working with it. The file has shown only to direct me to the properties, from which I should dance, from the increments, it's not my fault that some people have started to take it apart, although there is nothing to take apart, although there are 3-4 formulas in excel and all .... and they take it apart as if it were a real grail, and I have shown only what I dance from, and this property works everywhere, so I use it everywhere and everywhere. Naturally, for it to work and bring benefit, you need to continue to work with him.
 
The algorithm never existed and still does not exist, maybe the power would not be so crazy, but I have no desire to code something incomprehensible, I gave a file on increments, with the conclusion that the vast majority of bets are on all patterns, and if they take 50% or less, then I'm screwed.
 
By the way, as correctly noted bloodsucker, about the strategy lucky Nekola, so I wrote about it, that not for nothing puts on neighbouring values with doubling, example so-so of course, but here he is looking for options when such combinations are fewer, and the price of the game becomes higher.
1...108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122...650
New comment