From theory to practice - page 537
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 think the analogy with gravity is very relevant. In the market, gravity is created by money. Some will come in with a hundred dollars, others with a few billion. The same laws of gravity apply here and even the same formula I gave above. The force of attraction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance and directly proportional to the masses. Therefore a polynomial regression of degree 2 (parabola) is the most appropriate tool. Although it would be more logical to use a hyperbola, because it is according to the laws of the hyperbola that two gravitational bodies interact. But, the fact is that the parabola is much more convenient for calculations, as well as parabola and hyperbola are very similar to each other at the most important interval.
The main difference between the gravity of money and the gravity of celestial bodies is that money can suddenly appear and suddenly disappear, creating powerful gravitational fluctuations. But to calculate this event, there is such a thing as a channel breakdown.You can see it clearly here. The red line is the parabola and the blue line is the hyperbola.
What if we don't bother with regressions and go on to fill in the formula for the Great Law with values?
For example, what is mass in our case?
such a thing would be determined from the chart...
what if we don't bother with regressions and go on to fill in the formula for the Great Law with values?
For example, what is mass in our case?
such a thing would be determined from the chart...
Alternatively, a quantity proportional to the square of the width of a linear or parabolic channel.
No problem, that's why we're human, we all believe in something.
what's the problem (or my interest) here in general, once again I'll refer to the videohttps://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/221552/page525#comment_8564120
What's interesting about the presenter? - At the end of the video, he says that human beings are inherently objects of living nature and it is not inherent to them to live in the existing world - end of the video
if to think about it, all our science is a set of rules that we have made and we follow these rules. of course, technical progress shows that science "rules", but there is a "double-edged sword" - if science "rules" then it knows everything, but science cannot explain how other species (animals) explain the world without it - but they live and I think without problems
i.e. what I'm getting at:
- there's mathematics, there's the decimal system, there's arithmetic - well, hooray for that... But historically, for example, complex mathematics could be formed and we would answer the question "12 integers and 20 imaginary parts of day" .....
- nature doesn't have a mathematical basis, because it doesn't have these rules that people have made, but people are trying to describe everything around them with these rules.
- And to the topic to which I paid attention to your message, what you are trying to call the space-time continuum, well, this is the theory described by modern science, i.e. the environment which we have not seen and we are trying to describe by mathematical methods which describe only the conventions of modern science.
so the result is a theory that is described by the conventions of mathematics and is not supported by anything, and we're talking about natural phenomena?
Well sometimes there are explanations for phenomena, for example gravitation, no one can try and feel it, Einstein calculated that gravitation distorts the trajectory of light, then proved by experience, so maybe with BingBang, found relict waves, maybe something else will be found))
Many people live ina "comfort zone" and are afraid to get out of it. Some just don't want to do it.
well, they're right - it's natural, it's what all living things strive for ))))).
it's another matter that those who don't want to be in the comfort zone try to be innovators... alas, about innovators - nature decided long ago that in order to determine that innovation deserves to remain in history, we need to kill several thousand innovators and keep the strongest one - alas, nature has no concept of pity or "let it last longer" - survival of the fittest, the key word is survival - everything is harsh in the surrounding world, it is clear that it is not according to human concepts, but the point is that man does not live by the laws of nature
well, sometimes there are explanations for phenomena, for example, gravitation, no one can try and feel it, einstein calculated that gravitation distorts the trajectory of light, then proved by experience, so maybe with BingBangem, found a relic wave, maybe they will find something else))
no problem, i brought up a topic only about historically formed scientific activity, but it is not tied to the laws of nature, yes everything works, but ... so 90% of the equations of physics are described by integral equations, not arithmetic formulae, because the processes that mathematics and physics describes tend to change both in time and state, and simple formulas describe the initial state
alternatively a value proportional to the square of the channel width of a linear or parabolic.
If so, we have one mass.
but we need to divide it into two - m1 and m2
Why do we need the square of height (width)? The channel has a finite "lifetime".
the current area is most likely more interesting - it is the mass and can serve as a check figure when trying to divide it into two masses
I suggest instead of regression:
I drew it at the end of 16 and kept it, not finding any use for it.
may already be needed
well, they're right - it's natural, it's what all living things strive for )))))
it's another matter that those who don't want to be in the comfort zone try to be innovators... alas, nature is an innovator; it decided long ago that in order to determine that innovation deserves to remain in history, you need to kill several thousand innovators and leave the strongest - alas, nature has no concept of pity or "let it wait and see" - survival of the fittest, the key word is survival - everything is harsh in the environment, understandably not according to human concepts, but the point is that man does not live according to the laws of nature
I get your point about survival)
Then a question: discussion in the theme "From Theory to Practice" has already reached page 537, when will there be practice?
I get your point about survival)
Then a question: the discussion in the thread: "From theory to practice" has already reached page 537, when will the practice???
with practice the weight is simple... if you catch a profit run!!!! otherwise the market will take everything away from you
)))
with practice the weight is simple... if you catch a profit run!!!! otherwise the market will take everything away from you
)))
This is also a theory)
This is also a theory.)
Alas, this is a truth confirmed by practice:
STOCK SPECULATOR'S AXIOMS
The basic axiom #1. Risk.
Subsidiary axiom #1. Always play for significant stakes.
Subsidiary axiom #2. Do not succumb to the supposed allure of diversification.
A speculative strategy.
Basic axiom #2. Greed.
Auxiliary axiom #3. Decide in advance what profit you want to make on the trade, and once you have it, immediately close the position.
A speculative strategy.
Basic axiom #3. Hope.
Auxiliary axiom #4. Treat small losses calmly, as if they were inevitable. Be prepared for the fact that you will have to go through several such losses on your way to major success.
Speculative Strategy.
Basic Axiom 4. About predictions.
Speculative Strategy.
Basic axiom number 5. On models.
Auxiliary axiom #5. Beware of the trap of historical parallels.
Auxiliary axiom No. 6. Beware of the illusion of repeating figures.
Auxiliary axiom No. 7. Beware of the delusion of the existence of correlation and causation.
Auxiliary axiom #8. Beware of a deceptive gambling hunch.
Speculative strategy.
Basic axiom No. 6. On mobility.
Auxiliary axiom No. 9. Don't let yourself be trapped by feelings of attachment and nostalgia.
Auxiliary axiom No. 10. Never hesitate to part with your assets if a more attractive alternative appears.
Speculative strategy.
Basic axiom #7. About Intuition.
Subsidiary axiom #11. Never confuse intuition with hope.
Speculative strategy.
Basic axiom No. 8. On religion and the occult.
Subsidiary axiom No. 12. If astrology worked, all astrologers would be rich people.
Auxiliary axiom No. 13. You don't have to disavow superstitions. They can be fun if they occupy their proper place.
Speculative strategy.
Basic axiom No. 9. Optimism and pessimism.
Speculative strategy.
Basic axiom No. 10. On consensus.
Subsidiary axiom #14. Never follow the whims of others. Often the best time to buy is when no one else wants it.
Speculative strategy.
Basic axiom number 11. Persistence.
Auxiliary axiom #15. Never try to salvage a bad investment through averaging.
Speculative strategy.
Basic axiom #12. About planning.
Auxiliary axiom #16. Avoid long-term investments.
Alas, this is a truth proven by practice:
A good sample, I mean in terms of volume)
Auxiliary axiom #16 ... what about Buffett from the pages of forbes? Oh, and there are questions about half of the axioms as well.