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 will make such changes.
.
But maybe there is something to it after all... Maybe we shouldn't change the integration limits... We'll see.
Then the normalisation conditions will not be met, and if you ignore this, it is perfectly possible to keep the integration limits.
We note a very interesting behaviour of the function B(c), the transition process of which takes place in the area of negative values. Figuratively speaking, the future is already conceived, developing, preparing to enter the real world, but not yet manifested in it.
Results with modified integration limits
.
Results with modified integration limits
.
Dear avtomat, good afternoon.
Could you, apart from formulas and graphs, write the conclusions in words.
For those less versed in the matter.
Dear avtomat, good afternoon.
Apart from formulas and graphs, could you please write your conclusions in words?
For those less versed in the matter.
It is too early to draw conclusions; you have to work up the material to draw conclusions. But small comments are possible, of course.
Dear avtomat, good afternoon.
Apart from formulas and graphs, could you please write your conclusions in words?
For those less versed in the matter.
.
.
In the modified integration limits, the transient B(c) has lost its negative region. Is this good or bad? What is the physical meaning of such an area?
One should also remember that the Euler Gamma function used in this model is a complex function.
Recall the active and reactive power components. It is too early to confirm, but it seems that the above-mentioned negative region corresponds to the reactive component. Thus, by limiting the integration limits, we cut off the reactive component, leaving only the active component to be considered. However, this significantly impoverishes the model, as the reactive component is just as real as the active component, although it has a different form of manifestation.
.
.
In the modified integration limits, the transient B(c) has lost its negative region. Is this good or bad? What is the physical meaning of such an area?
One should also remember that the Euler Gamma function used in this model is a complex function.
Recall the active and reactive power components. It is too early to confirm, but it seems that the above-mentioned negative region corresponds to the reactive component. Thus, by limiting the integration limits, we cut off the reactive component, leaving only the active component to be considered. However, this significantly impoverishes the model, as the reactive component is just as real as the active component, although it has a different form of manifestation.
Take the integration limits as 0 - t/t, then E and B(c) will vary between 0-1. The reason for the appearance of (-2) is this.
Performed check: E(c) = P(c) + H(c)?
1)
.
2)
A roughly two-day market phase is revealed, why it is a two-day phase remains a mystery. 210 bars on M15, 104 on M30, 52 on H1.