Absolute courses - page 8
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
I'm going to demonstrate the solution.
Oh, looking forward to solving a system that cannot be solved. Will it be possible to criticise?
I'm going to demonstrate the solution.
And what, it's the only one?
Oh, looking forward to solving a system that cannot be solved. Will it be possible to criticise?
Of course you can, you even need to. I went the same way, and found a solution, but it was of ZERO use.
There are many solutions, the topicstarter is looking for (knows) a refining equation.
No. There is a single solution that does not require the assumption of additional equations. That is, mathematically requiring some kind of addition to the system, but physically not. Say, such solution is possible (I have implemented it): the "principle of least action", i.e. reaching the known (realized) increments ED, PD, EP, for example, or another triangle, by minimal changes (minimizing the sum of moduli) separately E, P, D. By minimal relative changes, so that there is something to compare and add up the modules. But the solution found from such assumption will not satisfy the lint test. Let's say, if we find dollar (separately from time in relation to itself in the past) from EURUSD, EURJPY, USDJPY, the result will be similar (this is generally speaking cool, for it means that this relationship - the principle of least action - is much closer to the truth than the equation zeroing the sum of currencies, however it is not exactly true - not exactly similar, not equal to the graph if we find D(t) from another triangle, for example GBPUSD, GBPJPY, USDJPY).
It is stated that the solution found from one triangle must coincide with the solution found from any other triangle, only then it can be considered true.
No. There is a single solution that does not require the assumption of additional equations. That is, mathematically requiring some kind of addition to the system, but physically not. Say, such solution is possible (I have implemented it): the "principle of least action", i.e. reaching the known (realized) increments ED, PD, EP, for example, or another triangle, by minimal changes (minimizing the sum of modules) separately E, P, D. By minimal relative changes, so that there is something to compare and add up the modules. But the solution found from such assumption will not satisfy the lint test. Let's say, if we find a dollar (separately from the dollar in relation to itself in the past) from EURUSD, EURJPY, USDJPY, the result will be similar (this is generally speaking cool!) but not strictly similar, not equal to the graph if we find D(t) from another triangle, for example GBPUSD, GBPJPY, USDJPY.
It is argued that the solution found from one triangle must coincide with the solution found from any other triangle, only then it can be considered true.
Already interesting, a different approach of course, but... next.
It is clear to everyone. By "closing the triangle" we mean writing out the ratio of increments for all three "sides". In fact, we have already reached this point:
The designations may be different, but those who understand what they are talking about will understand, and those who don't understand don't need to understand.
Error. The "epsilon" increments are different for E, P, D, - and so they must be provided with appropriate indices. This results in an undefined system, not an overdetermined one.
Error. The "epsilon" increments are different for E, P, D, - and therefore they must be provided with appropriate indices.
That's why they are indexed: epsilon with index E, epsilon with index P, and epsilon with index D. Wipe your eyes, colleague, and take a nap.
Don't be rude - it won't help to solve the problem.
Explain how dED (second line, left-hand side) became eED (third line, left-hand side)