and wandering around randomly again... - page 59
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
It's kind of weird. All arguments have been made. The passenger seems to have realised. Three hours go by and it's like he's forgotten everything. The impression of insanity.
And has been covered for a long time, now there is a process of charitable enlightenment of consciousness.
There's a game on for the audience.)
nowi, until you explain on what basis you will declare some point of sequence as ZERO, and all others as dependent on it, no sane person will take seriously the stories "about trajectory aspiration to zero". For all perfectly understand that without a connection of the next throw with the previous ones, EVERY NEW throw will BE also the NEW ZERO point...
Which of all of them should the trajectory then aim for?
there is no one to explain...you are as dumb as a log...there have been plenty of explanations...but you don't get it...so just back off...
It comes to mind...)
Thank you!
At least something not in the style of this thread, but on the subject).
It's 59 pages of nothing more than a waste of time. Personally, I got tired reading this thread and still do not understand - what does the author of the branch means?The point before the first throw. This is the point before the first throw. If someone starts the second shot after 100 shots, the ending must be 100 shots later, even if infinity is ahead.
Nowi- he is just trying to get away with silence.
And you - stubbornly trying to get into an awkward situation where you have to take responsibility for what you say.
And you are saying, if you translate from your virtual model into the universal language of real life, verbatim the following...
... In plain human language, you assert that if you start flipping a coin on Monday morning and write down the statistics with the purpose of demonstrating to dumb Kent how the trajectory of the graph will obediently aim to zero, which you assigned "...before the first flip...", and let's say, at 17:00 you finish this work with a deflection of minus 1000 points, then on Tuesday morning, before the first flip of the day, the coin will account for the entry you made yesterday in the notebook... and, all subsequent flips, will fall not randomly (50/50), but with a probability adjustment to compensate for the resulting bias.
Unfortunately, in the harsh reality of life, arriving Tuesday morning at the place of the scientific toss, you will be surprised to find that, on the first toss, the coin will give a fuck about you,... about the statistics you saved on Monday evening,... about all yesterday's tosses... ...and Monday's all together... and from the FIRST throw (!!!) it will fall out completely by accident... with absolutely no regard for your indignation: "What about yesterday's deviation?!!", starting a new(!) series independent of yesterday's(!) with its own zero.
THE "-1000 points" note you made on Monday night in the notebook HAS absolutely NO ANY IMPACT (!!!) on the coin
EXCEPT FOR THIS ENTRY, THERE WILL BE NOTHING LEFT OF YESTERDAY'S SERIES OF THROWS IN THE WILD.
And from the first flip on Tuesday morning until the last flip in infinity, the coin will NOT even flip to try to straighten out your contrived, purely virtual skew in the results
the outcome of EVERY throw depends ONLY on the physical forces that act on the coin and nothing else...
Writing in the notebook the result of previous throws IS NOT THIS POWER
The one trying to get away with silence is just that.
And you - stubbornly trying to get into an awkward situation where you have to take responsibility for what you say.
And you are saying, if you translate from your virtual model into the universal language of real life, verbatim the following...
... In plain human language, you assert that if you start flipping a coin on Monday morning and write down the statistics with the purpose of demonstrating to dumb Kent how the trajectory of the graph will obediently aim to zero, which you assigned "...before the first flip...", and let's say, at 17:00 you finish this work with a deflection of minus 1000 points, then on Tuesday morning, before the first flip of the day, the coin will take into account the entry you made yesterday in the notebook... and, all subsequent flips, will fall not randomly (50/50), but with a probability adjustment to compensate for the resulting bias.
Unfortunately, in the harsh reality of life, arriving Tuesday morning at the place of the scientific toss, you will be surprised to find that, on the first toss, the coin will give a fuck about you,... about the statistics you saved on Monday evening,... about all yesterday's tosses... ...and Monday's all together... and from the FIRST throw (!!!) it will fall out completely by accident... with absolutely no regard for your indignation: "What about yesterday's deviation?!!", starting a new(!) series independent of yesterday's(!) with its own zero.
THE "-1000 points" note you made on Monday night in the notebook has absolutely no ANY IMPACT (!!!) on the coin
EXCEPT FOR THIS ENTRY, THERE WILL BE NOTHING LEFT OF YESTERDAY'S SERIES OF THROWS IN THE WILD.
And from the first flip on Tuesday morning until the last flip in infinity, the coin will NOT even flip to try to straighten out your contrived, purely virtual skew in the results
the outcome of EVERY throw depends ONLY on the physical forces that act on the coin and nothing else...
Writing down the result of previous throws in the notebook is NOT THIS POWER.
You're such a chatterbox. You are the one who has a coin falling 2+ 1-)))) He has stated quite the opposite, he has stressed the probability of series and independence of the coin more than once. Except after each of your zero points, given that there will be an infinite number of such zero points at infinity you will not have 2+ 1- . This is no longer a coin. The zero points will of course be, as has been precisely observed, smeared out at infinity. But the sum of trajectories after these zero points tends to zero. You have taken and inverted on purpose the words of the opponent.
Oh, you're such a chatterbox. You are the one who has the coin falling 2+ 1-))))He has stated quite the opposite, he has emphasised the series probability and the independence of the coin more than once. Except after each of your zero points, given that there will be an infinite number of such zero points at infinity you will not have 2+ 1- . This is no longer a coin. The zero points will of course be, as has been precisely observed, smeared out at infinity. But the sum of trajectories after these zero points tends to zero. You took and inverted on purpose the words of your opponent.
I didn't flip anything, Georges.
If you confirm that ALL SERIES are EQUAL, then the series "+1-2 in a cycle" has the same probability of existence as any other series (and fits perfectly with a coin).
But, the opponent could not agree with it at all, because then his statement that any series in infinity will inevitably return to zero,... as the series "+1-2" and infinite set of similar ones (those which even in the absence of the cycle will slowly either slide down, or go up on the diagram) - will never "return to zero".
And the"DIFFERENT zero point" is generally an example of striving to get out at all costs, just to avoid admitting one's mistake.
"...The sum of trajectories after these zero points..."
What's the AMOUNT... and what trajectories, if we are talking about ONE particular trajectory, which is used to graph ONE series of throws?
The fact that I, after some time from the start of this series, would come and make my own count (my zero point) on the SAME graph, will not lead to a doubling of the number of trajectories displayed on it. And even if everyone agrees that EVERY point of a trajectory may be called zero by anyone- the trajectory still remains ONE on the graph...
What can be the SUMMARY here?
========================================
OK... let's say I've twisted some of my opponent's words.
But the reason for the argument isn't my misunderstanding of his words... The argument started with the fact that the opponent does not acknowledge the right to the existence of trajectories that can NEVER go back to the LINE, which the opponent, you see, deigned to designate "zero" by his supreme command.
A graph, EVERY DOT of which represents the outcome of a random event CAN BE ANYTHING (!!!)
And you either have to agree with that, or start making up "smeared points"... That's it dear...
...
A graph, EACH point of which represents the outcome of a LOCAL event MAY HAVE ANY trajectory (!!!)
...
Re the sub.
here's the file.... it's a random graph generator.... and they are completely indistinguishable from the real ones...whoever finds a single difference can throw a stone at me)
would love to hear people's opinions on this....
I'll try to explain one more time, probably the last one, because it's very boring...
For example, take your favourite martingale. We have a series of 20 coin tosses.
In any given coin flip, there is a 50% chance of heads and tails...
does that mean a series of 20 heads in a row is as likely (50%) as a single flip of a coin? NO. The probability is extremely small... and the larger the series the less likely it is...
which series of 20 is the most probable? the one where heads and tails are about the same, and most of the time they will be that series i.e. 11:9 or 7:13 or 12:8 etc. they will be in the middle of the dome distribution and have the highest probability density... and only occasionally there may be series which are very different from the uniform distribution, they will be on the edges of the density and have the lowest frequency of falling out...
So answer your own question: can the series +1 -2 where heads are twice less than tails and in an infinitely large cycle be equal to any other series where heads and tails are more or less balanced?
Not just any pattern, but one that is studied (and explained) by probability theory.
Dimitri, good day, please explain in more detail.