Points VS Pips - page 141
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 haven't read 140 pages. But, I can't help feeling that these two concepts can be defined in one post with two sentences.
This is how it is done. Simply, it specifies the sequence number of the sign and that's it.
Artem, have a look at the article our professional the-wiseman put up a flag and jumped on the tram with it:
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032615/what-difference-between-pips-points-and-ticks.asp
It says that the price change is presented in three dimensions: point, tick, pips.
a point is the maximum change, to the left of the comma, I understand that 1 point = $1
tick and pip are to the right of the comma and are expressed as percentage or fractions of a point.
the article does not give a complete exhaustive explanation.
People can make up their own definitions as they see fit. This does not mean that Point() becomes wrong and should be urgently rewritten in documentation, or better remove from MQL altogether, because it prevents you from living in your reality.
The subject is a total wilderness. Ah, yes - zoo.
This is how it is done. You just have to specify the sequence number of the sign and that's it.
Well, that's how you usually ask the customer to decide on the terminology. And then the Point is used to calculate what the customer needs.
Can't you turn the subject around for another 300 pages on what "term" means and what "jargon" means?
Artem, compare the number of your posts and mine in this thread. Besides, my arguments are quite quotable profile resource, while yours are statements about jargon, pits, anglicisms and links to mql documentation, which has no definition of the discussed terms at all.
Well, that's usually what everyone asks the customer in order to define the terminology. And then what the customer needs is calculated from the Point.
it's just that the term "point" is overloaded.
The key question in this thread is roughly "how many points are in a point".
Without identifying the indicators we're talking about -- without identifying the indicator from which the other indicators are derived -- the topic cannot be covered, it's an endless discussion.
but alas in the documentation Point() and in the terminal Points, but both terms return the same value - Tick, aka pip(s)
; ))
Horses, people and something about guns.
Humanitarians are to blame.
A logician will do the analysis.
1. After the comma, there is no smallest number.
2. You can introduce as many terms as you like: there is no logical or physical law against introducing terms for phenomena, objects and relations. There is another law: these phenomena, objects and relations must not be identical to different terms.
3. There are two objects: a number limited by four decimal places and a number limited by five decimal places. Let us introduce terms for them:"four digits" and "five digits". Each of the digits in this number can be given a different term, focusing on the last digit in each number:
a) Let's call the last character of the "four digit" "point".
b) Let's call the last character of the "five digit" "pip".
Now we can understand each other when we use these terms.
4. There are different kinds of concepts: in scope, in content:
a) If we call the last characters of four and five digits exclusively and only "point", then we will expand the concept but narrow down the specifics. It is like calling an oak tree and an ash tree, but not specifying. We kind of say it right, but it becomes more difficult to understand each other in detail. Both have wooden chairs, but to say that the chairs are the same is not that impossible, but incorrect, incomplete. That is why it is incorrect to call only the last digits in a five-digit and a four-digit item, and we have to constantly clarify, i.e. to reintroduce the terms "in the five-digit" or "in the four-digit". For such cases, they introduce qualifying terms so that they do not write the definition of "point in five digits" in the post, but only the term "pips".
b) Insisting on the exclusivity of the term "point" alone is groundless, subjective, has no relation to the logic of things and is only an expression of the claimant's attitude to the well-established order of the field in question.
Humanitarians are to blame.
A logician will do the analysis.
1. After the comma, there is no smallest number.
2. You can introduce as many terms as you like: there is no logical or physical law against introducing terms for phenomena, objects and relations. There is another law: these phenomena, objects and relations must not be identical to different terms.
3. There are two objects: a number limited by four decimal places and a number limited by five decimal places. Let us introduce terms for them: "four digits" and "five digits". Each of the digits in this number can be given a different term, focusing on the last digit in each number:
a) Let's call the last character of the "four digit" "point".
b) Let's call the last character of the "five digit" "pip".
Now we can understand each other when we use these terms.
4. There are different kinds of concepts: in scope, in content:
a) If we call the last characters of four and five digits exclusively and only "point", then we will expand the concept but narrow down the specifics. It is like calling an oak tree and an ash tree, but not concretising. We kind of say it right, but it becomes more difficult to understand each other in detail. Both have wooden chairs, but to say that the chairs are the same is not that impossible, but incorrect, incomplete. That is why it is incorrect to call only the last digits in a five-digit and a four-digit item, and we have to constantly clarify, i.e. to reintroduce the terms "in the five-digit" or "in the four-digit". For such cases they introduce qualifying terms, so that not the definition "point in five digits", but only the term "pip" is written in the post.
b) Insistence on the exclusivity of the term "point" only is groundless, subjective, has no relation to the logic of things and is only an expression of an affirmative attitude to the well-established order of the field in question.
That's what I'm talking about ))))
"is only an expression of the assertor's attitude towards the established order of the area in question. "
Artyom, forex is not limited to one language MQL, it is also traded manually