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
The indicator works
Here's a compact, fast version of parabolic and linear regression in mql4, but I still haven't figured out how to get rid of one cycle when calculating sxxy value.
What's the point of that?
Try applying this code to calculate the regression elsewhere, say, if you have an array of values - you'll have to go quite deep into the code's workings. And why, if it's more reasonable to do the opposite, the code may not be as efficient, but it's easy to modify.
Personally, my regression class has three virtual functions - to get the number of points and their coordinates, to apply regression - you should declare a class where you overload these functions to the required ones - and immediately get the coefficient of the regression polynomial of any degree from zero to the third. In addition, there are two optional functions - for obtaining weights and the "polar point" (i.e. the point the polynomial must necessarily pass through), but these functions can be omitted, weights will be equated to one, and the polynomial will be calculated without the polar point. It may not be as efficient (both at the expense of internal loops and virtual functions), but it is very flexible, and there is no need to figure it out.
What's the point of that?
Try applying this code to calculate the regression elsewhere, say, if you have an array of values - you'll have to go quite deep into the code's workings. And why, when it's more reasonable to do the opposite, let the code be not so effective, but easily modifiable.
Personally, my regression class has three virtual functions - number of points and their coordinates - to apply regression - I declare a class where these functions must be overloaded and we immediately get the regression polynomial coefficient of any degree from zero to the third. In addition, there are two optional functions - for obtaining weights and the "polar point" (i.e. the point the polynomial must necessarily pass through), but these functions can be omitted, weights will be equated to one, and the polynomial will be calculated without the polar point. It may not be as efficient (both at the expense of internal loops and virtual functions), but it is very flexible, and there is no need to figure it out.
I am ready to refute the ingrained opinion that polynomials of any degree are vital and irreplaceable. On real examples of participants I will prove that polynomials lose by almost all indicators of URM regression (above I gave a link) to forget about unsinkability of polynomials forever.
No need, you proved it a long time ago, we believe it.
In return for what? I don't give a shit about him, as long as he doesn't start running around in technical threads, especially regarding pros, talking nonsense and trolling members, mentioning "the club" and other nonsense.
It's just that in this thread his trolling was beautifully translated into self-banning, which I thanked him for.
How can you get past something like that?Here's another one in the club- 11 pages full of crap, shitting with each other, but no one has enough guts to write a normal test - to check and argue their position. And better to just join forces and figure it out at least for themselves. It's called super technical experts on the pros... I can imagine what they write on their pluses.
There is one more club here - the OOP Victims Club with new concepts - it turns out that if inheritance is not used, it is not OOP any more, so there is that rubbish. And they too lack the courage to write a test and check when it is faster - when it is polymorphism and when it is piggyback etc. ...and all the same faces we know from the club of victims of C++.
And where do you look for happiness now, again something from the ceiling (like mining)?
There are no recipes for "happiness" anywhere, it is useless to look for it. I am content with what has been achieved. I am proud of the fact that I managed to develop the SDMhttps://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/250 and the "Market Theory" https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/1825, but, they will be understood in 100 years or more. I said earlier thathttps://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/318795/page17#comment_13020163 indicator is persistently waiting for its time and it has come:
Nowhere is there a recipe for "happiness
If you can find a solution without recursion, it is better than with recursion.