Points VS Pips - page 93
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
Don't piss me off. I'm very patient. But...
this thread is being deliberately turned into a circus.
that's what I'm talking about)
the division of the scale has no effect on the point (second)
What are you talking about?
A point is NOT a SECOND.
A point is a measure of a second. If the measure is increased, the second will still be a second, but it will no longer contain one point, but as many points as the accuracy of the measurement is increased.
I don't have that analogy - it's your ideas about simple things that tell you.
I'm trying to explain to you that a point is the minimum division of the scale as Dmitri already told you above.
The second will not become different if the accuracy scale is changed. But there will be exactly as many points in a second as the accuracy of the second is increased by.
It sounds like you are just trolling.
I have already written that there is no question of a point as a minimum step.
The issue is the fractional Point (or Second), which does not change with increasing accuracy.
What do you mean?
_Point is NOT pips.
A point is a measure of a second. If you increase the measure of a second, it will still be a second, but it will no longer contain one point, but as many points as you increase the accuracy of the measure.
Why in MT"_Point is pips" but in all others"_Point is NOT pips"?
That is, why in MT"a point is a second" but in others"a point is NOT a second"?
the branch is being deliberately turned into a circus
Bluster = flooding = deletion.
Why does MT have"_Point is pips" but everyone else has"_Point is NOT pips"?
There are no pips, it's slang.
I have already written that there is no question about the point as a minimum step.
The question is the fractional Pip (or Second), which does not change with increasing accuracy.
Take a ruler and study it carefully - it says it all.
A centimetre does not become a millimetre when you suddenly find millimetres inside a centimetre.
Just as a decimetre doesn't become a centimetre when you find centimetres inside it, etc.
A meter is the distance to which you fly away when you receive a paddle. Apart from metres you have no other measure of measurement.
You have been kicked and you have flown a distance of one metre - one point (because you have no other measure).
Now, centimeters have been introduced and the distance of one meter has become 100 points. The distance has not increased - it remains a distance of one metre.
And when you get the paddle, you've gone to a distance of one metre, but now you've gone to a hundred points. Because now you can measure the distance 10 times better.
Take a ruler in your hands and study it carefully - it says it all.
A centimetre does not become a millimetre when you suddenly find millimetres inside a centimetre.
Neither does a decimetre become a centimetre when you find centimetres inside it, etc.
A meter is the distance to which you fly away when you receive a paddle. Apart from metres you have no other measure of measurement.
You have been kicked and you have flown a distance of one metre - one point (because you have no other measure).
Now, centimetres have been introduced and a distance of one metre has become 100 points. The distance has not increased - it remains a distance of one metre.
And when you receive the pendel, you have moved to a distance of one metre in exactly the same way, but now by a hundred points. Because you can now measure the distance 10 times better.
A more or less competent article came up:https://budgeting.thenest.com/point-stock-exchange-mean-25644.html
It turns out that there is a difference simply in the price of a stock, the change in which is measured in points. Here a point corresponds to a dollar. Hence it can be fractional.
And then, bam, there is another topic - stocks and indices on the stock exchange, and here it is measured in points - in indivisibles.
And the basis point refers to bonds and some other markets, but which ones are not specified. Bonds involve the payment of interest (so it seems natural to use the basis point), so don't use this uncertainty about other markets as a loophole.
That's right the point is integer and ndivided. Then what did he forget in the fractional part?
Shoot yourself.