Sultonov differential indicator - page 43
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
In the given variant of DA indicator we gave a variant, which has nothing in common with RSI, the only thing in common is to get and use the difference of the neighbour price values, and that in RSI between bars, and in DA - inside of the 0-th bar. Is the use of price differences tabooed by Widler as well?
And nothing in common, because it is as amoeba to dinosaur.
RSI has exponential smoothing and you have a simple average.
And there is a difference here, which you called "insignificant" - in RSI the smoothing of the two lines is made by the total period N, and in ours - by the actual periods peculiar to the Bulls and Bears lines respectively - BUN and BEN from the condition N = BUN + BEN
There was a bug at the beginning, so there were very minor differences. The latest version 3 is the corrected one. There is a difference, in places strong, in places not.
From period 14:
RSI standard, and with components calculated by the Yusuf method:
Dimitri (who is Integer), well I pointed out two pages ago the difference between RSI and DA calculations. The difference is insignificant. If it is removed, then RSI and DA components graphs will perfectly coincide. No one is saying that there is anything fundamentally new being discussed here. There is another view on the methods of price representation. Half of the standard indicators also exploit the same thing - averaging. Nevertheless, they are all different indicators.
At least, no one has ever laid out the data in such a way (with pinpoint accuracy) (maybe I simply could not find it). This is not surprising. Because there really are millions of decomposition methods. And each of them can have its own name. If the person wants to do it - let him do it. He does not patent the invention. Besides, all the codes are accessible and free. Whoever wants it, let him take it. If they don't want it, nobody imposes it on them.
It's funny. All shout that the idea is trifling, but the topic is already five decades of pages long. And in good themes for some reason and page is typed rarely.
For my part, I honestly do not understand why everyone is so excited by this simple methodology?
It's funny. Everyone shouts that the idea is rubbish, but the topic is already in its fifth decade. And in good topics, for some reason, it rarely reaches a page.
For my part, I honestly do not understand why everyone is so excited about this simple technique?
Yes, often in good topics and will not get a page, and shenanigans are more popular. That's the way it is.
By the way, I don't care at all what the indicator is called, and the fact that it's close and similar to RSI too. Take away the tail twitching - it is an essential, critical defect, and you will be happy with a normal working indicator. That is what it takes - change the SMA to EMA (or something similar) - and the tail, distorting the data, will disappear. It does not matter for me if it changes into some known indicator or not.
RSI has exponential smoothing and you have a simple average.
Dimitri, you should not try to take "laurels" from Yusuf. It is inappropriate not only from an ethical point of view, but also from a scientific point of view.
As we know from the history of science and technology, many brilliant discoveries and inventions were born from small deviations in numbers or calculations. Out of tiny differences in the views or approaches of researchers and innovators to ordinary and repeatedly meaningful things.
If Yusuf came up with his own indicator, it is rightly his achievement and he deserves the right to claim authorship. Imho.
Dimitri, you should not try to take "laurels" away from Yusuf. This is not only ethically inappropriate, but also scientifically inappropriate.
As we know from the history of science and technology, many ingenious discoveries and inventions were born on the basis of small deviations in numbers or calculations. Of tiny differences in the views or approaches of researchers and innovators on commonplace and repeatedly meaningful things.
If Yusuf came up with his own indicator, it is rightly his achievement and he deserves the right to claim authorship. Imho.
Which are?
Dimitri, you should not try to take "laurels" away from Yusuf. This is not only ethically inappropriate, but also scientifically inappropriate.
As we know from the history of science and technology, many ingenious discoveries and inventions were born out of small deviations in numbers or calculations. Out of tiny differences in the views or approaches of researchers and innovators to ordinary and repeatedly meaningful things.
If Yusuf came up with his own indicator, it is rightly his achievement and he deserves the right to claim authorship. Imho.
For what it's worth, I don't want any laurels. I'll trade you a bunch of bay leaves for soup.