The genetic algorithm and its possible applications - page 11
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
One of the results is tested on my demo account - there is a signal in my profile, the second result reacts to very rare signals in a certain market condition - when sentix index is above about 8 (ideally above 20 as in 2017 and 2018, but in early March there were 3 such events due to oil news - sentix reflects overall volatility of the entire European exchange, in 2019 3 events, and 2017 and 2018 every day 1 event, out of about 1000 events only 2 loss-making ones). In general the results are like looking for onamalias in a price chart - when they occur price tries to return to normal. Somebody wrote here that it makes sense to use algorythmic approach, it does - you can use daily strategies but with free parameters and free coefficients for them and of course the result depends on the function used in ontester() + inclusion of testerstop() in the algorithm for rejecting some results. Of course, the results are not perfect, for example, the Expert Advisor that is being tested as a signal now opens only sell orders due to limitations of the initial strategy (so to say, the inherent meaning) but I have understood how the strategy works and I will write a new algorithm with corrections for enabling Bay positions within a month. Immediately notice the tested result still can not be used - it's just a bare idea without improvement, without risk management + wrong stop loss (all bugs checked and need fixing, but so far not included in the working code) plus we need treatment of the news factor. So far the errors have not affected testing due to low volatility of the entire European exchange (this does not apply to local volatility, which is now observed). In general, everyone gets different results due to different implied meaning and different approaches to the optimization, implemented by the ontester() handler. The result is also affected by how you describe the algorithm of the initial strategy (small details - mutations for the final result) - in one result, an error in the description (not noticed before optimization) allowed for opening additional orders in the final result. Using genetic algorithm in this case is similar to using it in neuronets (a neuronet is a complex function with a lot of parameters and one of the ways of training it is a genetic algorithm).
All of the above refers to the application of the OVERALL gene algorithm - i.e. the 'clever' search for parameter values. It is an adaptation of a single and unchanging system to changing conditions.
cell division is dumb copypasta.
cell division is dumb copy-paste.
Those who think that everything can be built by shaking a "jar" of particles should read biology articles and learn how complicated the simplest organism is. One book gave the example that the probability of a living cell randomly forming is equal to the probability of a computer self-assembling at a scrap metal dump during a tornado.
It is not a question of who counts what; it is a question of the level and direction of abstraction. biologists find IT incomprehensible and incomprehensible in the same way as IT people find the mechanism of energy transfer by metachondria incredibly complicated. but biologists and IT people have no idea about cosmology (as well as cosmologists have no clue about biology and IT).
the emergence of life is inevitable in the universe, gravity is what makes planets, stars and cockroaches out of particles, but in random order. cockroaches on earth differ from cockroaches on taurine 5, all because of chance, here oxygen carries iron and there copper, here a carbon-based life form and there silicon-based and so on.... the combinations are endless. An inexhaustible Kaleidoscope of wonders.
But that's all lyricism. Random event and sorting by external factors is the wisdom of the universe. Shake it harder and you'll be happy. That's what Beale and Jeff say, and they're no fools by the way.
Alas, I can prove that it is not. An example from my practice: I want to use my visa editor to build it myself. That is, to create its continuation (as the cage does) within itself. So far, it is not working.
ugh man.)))
the complexity is only in the head.
ugh, man.)))
The difficulties are only in the head.
Aaah! So it just needs to be switched off and it'll work! I'll try it))))
No, don't turn your head off - it's a useful thing and it participates in many physiological processes in the body.) You'd better read Penrose, and many questions will fall away like husks.
it is not a question of who counts what; it is a question of the level and direction of abstraction. biologists find IT incomprehensible and incomprehensible in the same way as IT people find the mechanism of energy transfer by metachondria incredibly complex, but biologists and IT people have no idea about cosmology (and cosmologists are no strangers to biology and IT).
the emergence of life is inevitable in the universe, gravity is what makes planets, stars and cockroaches out of particles, but in random order. cockroaches on earth differ from cockroaches on taurine 5, all because of chance, here oxygen carries iron and there copper, here a carbon-based life form and there silicon-based and so on.... the combinations are endless. An inexhaustible Kaleidoscope of wonders.
But that's all lyricism. Random event and sorting by external factors is the wisdom of the universe. Shake it harder and you'll be happy. That's what Beale and Jeff say, and they're no fools by the way.
And I thought that modern universities teach all their graduates to program, but the computer has become a mundane tool, used in work and research specialist in any field. But apparently I am behind the times, I graduated from the radio department in 1968.
It is not a question of who counts what; it is a question of the level and direction of abstraction. biologists find IT incomprehensible and incomprehensible in the same way as IT people find the mechanism of energy transfer by metachondria incredibly complicated. but biologists and IT people have no idea about cosmology (as well as cosmologists have no clue about biology and IT).
the emergence of life is inevitable in the universe, gravity is what makes planets, stars and cockroaches out of particles, but in random order. cockroaches on earth differ from cockroaches on taurine 5, all because of chance, here oxygen carries iron and there copper, here a carbon-based life form and there silicon-based and so on.... the combinations are endless. An inexhaustible Kaleidoscope of wonders.
But that's all lyricism. Random event and sorting by external factors is the wisdom of the universe. Shake it harder and you'll be happy. That's what Beale and Jeff say, they're no fools by the way.
All of the above refers to the application of the OVERALL genetic algorithm - i.e. the "intelligent" search for parameter values. It is an adaptation of a single and unchanging system to changing conditions.
As for the usual alorhythm, I communicated with a knowledgeable person once and he said that in practice only mutation and adaptation influence, I myself have tried all kinds of classical crossing and hybrids. It is possible to change the convergence rate of the algorithm, it is impossible to achieve global fitness time after time.
And as for life on cassiopeia))) if by chance, count the generations .... first chemistry, then the first cells.... then the known lifetimes of the planets... numbers incalculable))))))) But if God's involvement) then...............
I am not claiming anything))))