Absolute courses - page 28

New comment
 
ktest0:

))))) Why, the anecdote captures the essence of the model!

Yeah, we see the hands, we see the focus, but we haven't seen the tool yet:)))
 
ktest0:

))))) Why, the anecdote captures the essence of the model!

I'm beginning to suspect that the letter F with a dot in the nickname is exactly what "magician" means...
 
Joperniiteatr:

I understand that everyone here is a learned way to aggression on the answer to inquire and dilute the answers, but a lot of flubbing from this, like a bazaar, follow-up, and there's already a caveat, the branch is shouting....

Don't make a fuss, don't ruin it for the rest of us. Although I also think the error accumulates differently from a changing piece of history, the important thing is that the error cumulative error is probably not significant.

In other words, where is the figure on the 20th page - where all three indexes are normalized on one picture, depending on the amount of history some gaps between indexes charts will change, but cardinally it wouldn't change the picture, that's probably what the author was talking about. And maybe it's not a simple suma error, it's not a total error in the calculation, but its own for the increasing depth of the window when calculating.


The author has already backtracked, it was not the indices.
 
alsu:

I'm beginning to suspect that the letter F with a dot in the nickname is exactly what "magician" means...

As long as it's not a magician.
 
alsu:

I wouldn't use an EA on the real, but I'd rather not use an EA that is EXTREMELY unrewarding. Would you?


That's why we ask the author to test it. But he denies it, saying that beauty is more important.


This is no longer fashionable, now it's fashionable to "practically does not leak".
 
No, he is not the only one who adequately leads us to the idea that the indices must be orthogonal, not calibrated, independent of each other. He put forward the hepothesis that this information can be obtained using only two pairs. But one has to select them and I have doubts about the best one too. The same will be true if we use a set of pairs, but there is no need to use them, the quantity will transform into quality and indicate what to take as ratio coefficient (the result of currency conversion in normalized form). There are thoughts about the fact that the author, when building the indexes, proceeded from the condition of co-direction, and received inflection points in the same places, but with splits in some places, as a result, when trading on pairs, one would have to analyze the splits by indexes, why not initially set the condition not of co-direction, but proportionality of index movements.... though, then there will be confusion with whom to put what sign from two pairs.... But it's the same problem here..... , only with velocities....who should be added to what velocity, if euro and the quid are both in the same direction, then both can be added to velocity, but the quid is bigger, and the quid only - to avoid it, it is necessary to set the condition that delta of index increments should never be equal to zero.
 
grell:

As long as he's not a magician.

The main thing is to be vigilant)


 
alsu:

The main thing is to be vigilant)


Shit, I just went to the baths yesterday.
 
alsu:

The main thing is to be vigilant)

Give us 12 months for 9 months!
 

Guys, really, it's not a branch but some kind of wit contest. Let the author write, stop biting him. He could not explain anything to anyone at all and keep quiet to himself. He promises to demonstrate viability - then we'll see what's what, then, if anything, and we can distribute.

1...212223242526272829303132333435...113
New comment