The most banal trading strategy - page 13
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
This was an assumption, not a theory. Similarly, it is all the same/mirror, yet positrons are not observed in similar numbers, nor is antimatter observed in similar numbers. I.e. in fact the bottom line: the positron as well as antimatter are defects of the universe, which are naturally withdrawn from the circulation of particles/matter in this universe.
Lenin didn't give a damn about this, there were other pressing problems from applied physics/chemistry/sociology - like colourless ink and the face of the revolution.
Not an acceptable puncture. Where the pressure is a million atmospheres, comparable high temperatures are present - which rules out the traditional structural organisation of "matter".
All in all, just another smarmy physicist's stunt to bend xforex.
P.S. If anything, I have a longer one (see ava.) ;)
Dear, will it surprise you much if I tell you that there are a lot of positrons in the Universe? That it is not an exception to the rule that antimatter is plentiful.
As for Lenin: not only Lenin, but all Mankind in Lenin's time did not know why the Sun shines :-) Therefore, nobody needed it :-)
It's even funnier when it comes to a million atmospheres. Did you even get through primary schools? I recommend you a video on YouTube: Artem Oganov. "Forbidden" chemistry, or how schoolboys turned out to be right.
As I understand it, the X and Y ratios are the position volume of each instrument?
Yes.
P.S. delta(EURUSD) = change in quote, opened at one price, at some point later look - different price, price difference - delta.
Dear, would it surprise you much if I informed you that there are a lot of positrons in the Universe? That ee is not an exception to the rule that antimatter is plentiful.
Foolishness, son, was demonstrated by you. You showed off your knowledge of mathematics, and you haven't got enough brains and elementary knowledge to differentiate the product of two functions, i.e. the relation a=b*s and divide the result by b*s, which will give the required coefficients.
It is clear that with such knowledge of mathematics you, in principle, cannot know modern physics. The modern ideas about the ratio of matter and antimatter are like that.
One of the unresolved theoretical questions in physics is why the universe is composed mainly of matter and not of equal fractions of matter and antimatter. It can be shown that to create an imbalance between matter and antimatter from the initial balance, Sakharov's conditions must be satisfied, one of which is the violation of CP-symmetry in the extreme conditions of the first seconds after the Big Bang. Explanations which do not use CP-symmetry breaking are less successful, as they rest on the assumption that the matter-antimatter imbalance existed initially or on other exotic assumptions (see The problem of initial values of the Universe state).
After the Big Bang, according to the popular belief, equal amounts of matter and antimatter must have appeared, if CP-symmetry persisted, in which case there would have been a total annihilation of both. That is, nucleons would annihilate with antinucleons, electrons with positrons, and so on for all elementary particles. This would lead to a sea of photons in a universe without other matter. Since it is obvious that our universe is not a sea of photons without other matter, after the Big Bang the physical laws acted differently for matter and antimatter, i.e. CP-symmetry was broken.
The standard model assumes only two ways of breaking of CP-symmetry. One of them, discussed above, is contained in the Lagrangian of QCD and it is not experimentally proved; one can expect that it will lead either to absence of symmetry breaking or to much stronger breaking of this symmetry. The second one, using the weak interaction, has been experimentally verified but can provide an explanation for only a small fraction of CP-symmetry breaking. Accordingly, it is necessary that the initial conditions of our Universe already contain an excess of matter over antimatter.
Yes, and don't make a big deal out of it. Here on this forum there are also very clever people, understand that with your kindergarten reasoning you simply put yourself to shame.
Aleksey Ivanov, grandson, don't try to replace the thesis.
The fact that there is apparently less antimatter than baryonic matter does not mean there is little antimatter. There is plenty of it.
That's the first thing.
Second, so far you've never been able to specify the X and Y coefficients in an equation that makes practical trade sense. Only fantasies that something there can be differentiated. This is telling.
@Aleksey Ivanov, grandson, don't try to substitute your thesis.
So far you still have not been able to specify the X and Y coefficients in an equation that makes practical trading sense
So we haven't heard anything from you either.
So we haven't heard anything from you either.
Yes.
P.S. delta(EURUSD) = change in quote, opened at one price, at some point later look - different price, price difference - delta.
So your ratios are adjusted to a certain time of the moment? Isn't that right?
From me you have heard a clear simple equation that represents a deal on EURGBP by a pair of deals on EURUSD and GBPUSD. Anyone who knows the simplest ideas about differential calculus can easily understand what volumes are masked there by symbols X and Y, but fools cannot understand it, because they get angry. The filter is simple but effective.
Do you smell an insult? I see you are an intellectual inXYZ)) You're just trying to be clever and evade answering.
So your coefficients are adjusted to a certain time of the current moment? Isn't that right?
Not adjusted. You wouldn't say that in the identity 2*2 = 4 the multipliers are fitted so that the equality is correct, would you? Yes, one of the coefficients from that pair (X and Y) depends on the ratio of currencies at the time you open the trade. If you open deals at different times - you need to use different coefficients for them to go in the future without going anywhere near zero (if EURGBP deals and a pair of EURUSD and GBPUSD deals are opened in opposite directions, against each other).
It's not matched. You wouldn't say that in the identity 2*2 = 4 the multipliers are fitted so that the equality is correct, would you? Yes, one of the coefficients from this pair (X and Y) depends on the ratio of currencies at the moment of trade opening. If you open deals at different times - you need to use different coefficients so that they go in the future without going anywhere near zero (if EURGBP deals and a pair of EURUSD and GBPUSD deals are opened in opposite directions, against each other).
So what makes you so sure they won't float away? You've only been testing for a week. Let's test it, what's there to argue about! The date is January 1, 2017. Waiting for your "correct" quotient for that date.