Charles Dow's theory - page 34
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
By and large, any algo is a calculation of the "Creator" by his "Creation".
If X^2 is known, then the value of X can only be calculated to the exact sign) I suppose the uncertainty of the result will be noticeably higher when "calculating" the "Creator"by his"Creation ")
By and large any algo is a calculation of the "Creator" by his "Creation".
In my opinion, the AI that sits in people's brains prevents them from solving the problem. It is like there is no answer to a scrap if there is no other scrap. That is why people are looking for another AI).
It's like remember the adventures of Electronica. It was like, "Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, don't do Eeeeee."
Sorry, we're old and we don't remember. And in our brains there's still natural, not AI. Well, maybe the time will come and we too will be put to the modernization and implanted with the necessary chips. In the meantime, we can make do with our own brains).
Well, then it's even broader than that.
I don't dare talk about faith. But science, yes. Creation of a theory on the basis of accumulated experimental results. In the market it is the same: building a model of an instrument (even if it is a crossover of wagons) on the basis of the quotation history.
Dear Vladimir, what significant difference did you see in my explanations of MOC on the page of the popular site MKL5https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/359299/page27#comment_20065708 from those known in the professional literature on the subject, which you cite? Except that I did not point to two more authors of ANMs, Lejandre and Laplace and other mathematicians who improved ANM estimation and developed the theory of estimation of mathematical statistics. They are included in the collective image of Gauss and everyone can find them in professional literature, if necessary. What other missteps have you "noticed"? Aren't you ashamed of trying to denigrate me for something I didn't do? Do you have something to say on the essence of the matter in question? If not, stop pressuring your psyche! For your information, the EOR were already successfully applied in geology in the study of the problem of drainage of gas deposits in Tyumen by my pupil and an invention application was filed, a thesis for a candidate of geological-mineralogical sciences was defended. PNB made a breakthrough in the field of radiography by assigning to each mineral a characteristic equation in the form of a B-function peculiar only to that mineral, sparing geologists the need to regularly use the cartography published in the USA. It proved validity of Ohm's law that had no theoretical substantiation; it destroyed use of any coefficients when studying problems of reliability and capacity of power high-voltage transformers; it determined exactly the dependence of heat capacity of materials on temperature with striking accuracy of 0.035% instead of 12% according to analogues. And this precision of the measuring equipment itself, and the accuracy of the PNB becomes absolute! PNB has unequivocally found the dependence of gold leaching from ores of Khishtkhona deposit in Zerafshan valley, by heap method, but by sodium cyanide solution, without using ore beneficiation processes. The experiment proved to be fundamentally possible to extract 92% of gold, although the experiments were terminated when 61% gold was extracted from poor ore containing only 0.05 g/t gold and which could not be processed using known technologies. Would you like me to go on with more examples on the effectiveness of EOR?
The essential difference was quoted by me, I repeat it again, it is in the phrase:
"And suddenly, on February 7, 2011, thundered out of a clear sky, leaving far behind the efforts of Gauss and considering his Method of Least Squares, as a particular case of a more general dependence in the form of PNB!". I pointed out that such a claim is unrealistic, because after the first three authors who published MNC (independently, in that order for almost a decade: Legendre, Gauss, Edraine) it has been developed by tens and hundreds more scientists. In the article on history of M MOC there is no mention of its application in numerical methods of solution of boundary value problems for partial derivative systems of equations (and not only) where the group of so called projection methods (finding a solution in form of expansion in basis from given functions, in particular proper functions) is based on it. There are many of these methods and some have got their names (e.g. Galerkin's method). Don't be so reckless as to try to stick out your role, even if it has already been proved. But no, you have already been answered on the mathematical forum by people of the editorial board that there is no scientific novelty in the mathematics part of your paper.
If it is in the part of geology, tell it at appropriate information resources where people know. After all, it's funny how it turns out - the articles on the medical problem of Covid spreading in China, in the USA, with five links to the Internet forum on the MQL5 programming language. How many medical scientists have heard anything about Internet speculation programming languages?
The essential difference was quoted by me, I repeat it again, it consists in a phrase:
"And suddenly, on February 7, 2011, there is a thunderbolt from a clear sky, far leaving Gauss's efforts behind and treating his Method of Least Squares as a special case of a more general dependence in the form of PNB!". I pointed out that such a claim is unrealistic, because after the first three authors who published MNC (independently, in that order for almost a decade: Legendre, Gauss, Edraine) it has been developed by tens and hundreds more scientists. In the article on history of M MOC there is no mention of its application in numerical methods of solution of boundary value problems for partial derivative systems of equations (and not only) where the group of so called projection methods (finding a solution in form of expansion in basis from given functions, in particular proper functions) is based on it. There are many of these methods and some have got their names (e.g. Galerkin's method). Don't be so reckless as to try to stick out your role, even if it has already been proved. But no, you have already been answered on the mathematical forum by people of the editorial board that there is no scientific novelty in the mathematics part of your paper.
If it is in the part of geology, tell it at appropriate information resources where people know. After all, it's funny how it turns out - the articles on the medical problem of Covid spreading in China, in the USA, with five links to the Internet forum on the MQL5 programming language. How many medical scientists have heard anything about Internet speculation programming languages?
You see nothing further than your nose, as they say in such cases when they deny the obvious facts! Answer directly the natural question: who, where and when, for the first time, introduced the letter and/or word combination PNB? Who, when, where and in what form alerted the scientific world to the existence of a chain of three PNB functions satisfying the normalization conditions? Just give me the facts and, if you don't find them, please keep quiet!!!, instead of accusing me of schizophrenia! We'll find out at once which of us is schizophrenic! Who, for the first time, linked PNB with philosophy and algotrading? What were the reasons and/or justifications for that?!
Does the EOPS function "predict" the EOPS function itself? If it is so universal, then it should... and without errors
i.e. we take a quote, send it to PNB1, the result of PNB1 to PNB2... the results of PNB should coincide
Does the EOPS function "predict" the EOPS function itself? If it is so universal, then it should... and without errors
i.e. we take a quote, send it to PNB1, the result of PNB1 to PNB2... the results of PNB should coincide
"Predicts" only function B, but, it is dead without functions H and P. They act symbatically, relying on each other.
I do not understand the phrase " Does the PNB function "predict" the PNB function itself? If it is so universal, then it should... and without errors ". Explain, please. They have, without error, determined the dependence of the heat capacity of the reference copper on temperature. This is the only fact that I discovered and made public. Also, they accurately determined the coordinates of electron layer locations in gold and several minerals by assigning them characteristic equations, as I pointed out earlier.
You can't see further than your nose, as they say when they deny the obvious facts! Answer directly to the natural question: who and when introduced into circulation the letter and/or word combination PNB, which, in sum, always give one? Who, when, where and in what form informed the scientific world about the existence of a chain of three PNB functions satisfying the normalization conditions? Just give me the facts, and if you don't find them, please keep quiet!!!, instead of accusing me of schizophrenia! You will find out right away which of us is schizophrenic!
Yusuf, my dear. I thought we had an agreement. But you're at it again.
You took the long-known functions P and H. Then you introduced your function B = 1 - (H + P). You know from the first grade of primary schools that in this case H + P + B = 1. What kind of normalization is this! It is an identity equality. Take anyP and H functions, and you get the same thing.
TakeH + P + B = 1. Replace B in it with 1 - (H + P).
We obtain: H + P + 1 - (H + P) = 1.
Open parentheses: H + P + 1 - H - P = 1.
We obtain 1 = 1.
Delusions of grandeur, a type of schizophrenic disorder. Seizures are treated as inpatients.
As unfortunate as it is, you seem to be right.