Has anyone tried to look at price fluctuations in terms of higher mathematics and its already invented mathematical apparatuses. - page 3
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
my point is that even with already existing indicators it is quite possible to depict an environment in which a particle fluctuates and the subsequent high probability effect of the environment on that particle with prediction of further behaviour of the particle in that environment.
the equations of the pendulum have already been mentioned
someone's been messing around with quantum optics
and so on.
---
When children were younger, they looked for lost things where they were comfortable/accustomed to look, not where they could lose them. That's the way it is here. As children
the equations of the pendulum have already been mentioned
someone's been messing around with quantum optics
and so on.
---
When children were younger, they looked for lost things where they were comfortable/accustomed to look, not where they could lose them. So there you go. Like children.
Against the market, everyone is a child. If the nature of the process is not completely clear, there is no absolutely accurate and reliable model and probably never will be (due to the specifics of the environment), all that really remains is to try to transfer and adapt methods from other fields of knowledge. It is better to have at least a palliative solution through crutches and poor analogies than to have none at all.
To create a profitable Expert Advisor, it is enough to know arithmetic and the basics of Boolean algebra.
Here are the results of a 2021 test of an Expert Advisor in which no indicators are used in the entry and exit conditions, and only two logical variables are used for entry and without any optimization. The entry condition is so simple that it might cause you to laugh and ask yourself, "Why did it only occur to me after all these years?" After all, it's so simple!)
Against the market, everyone is a child. If the nature of the process is not completely clear, there is no absolutely accurate and reliable model and probably never will be (due to the specifics of the environment), all that is realistically left is to try to transfer and adapt methods from other fields of knowledge. It is better to have at least a palliative solution through crutches and not the highest quality analogies, than to have none at all.
Another fashionable expression is 'getting out of your comfort zone'.
The formulas, models and justifications familiar from previous experience drag (mostly) from this. It's just that the head is so comfortable. Not to strain, not to be left one-on-one with the unknown, to take an area that is as familiar as five fingers and pull it down by the ears. It's easier to come up with new terms and a 'new vision' of the old ones, it doesn't ruin the inner world. Profit is only in the tester, but everything is in its place.
Still the same kids who look for where they are comfortable.
----
The elementary mathematics has already been mentioned here, I've already said it on the forum, the simplest one: the multiplicity of SL/TP affects the result more than their absolute values.
There is also the fashionable expression "getting out of your comfort zone".
The familiar formulas, models and rationales from previous experience are dragged (mostly) from this. It's just that the head is so comfortable. Not to strain, not to be left one-on-one with the unknown, to take an area that is as familiar as five fingers and pull it down by the ears. It's easier to come up with new terms and a 'new vision' of the old ones, it doesn't ruin the inner world. Profit is only in the tester, but everything is in its place.
Still the same children who seek where they are comfortable.
Trying to describe an unknown process with extraneous models - what's so shameful about that? You've got to have a way to approach the study. If something is drawn out, it's OK, it's better than nothing. An intermediate result, with which you can work further. Of course, you should not bend your head against it, if the method obviously does not work, throw it out.
Trying to describe an unknown process with extraneous models - what's wrong with that? There has to be a way of approaching the study. If something is drawn out, that's OK, it's better than nothing. An intermediate result, with which you can work further. Of course, you should not bend your head against it, if the method obviously does not work, throw it out.
If you describe an unknown process by means of third party models (and with certainty from unrelated fields), then you are trying to use the queen of sciences as a venal daughter of imperialism :-) And she is against it and retaliating
Against the market, everyone is a child. If the nature of the process ...........
is not comprehensible to everyone
it is truer
If you describe an unknown process by third-party models (and authentically that of unrelated fields), then you are trying to use the Queen of Science as a venal daughter of imperialism :-) And she's against it and retaliating.
I understand that you want to furrow your brow, scratch your chin and make a beautiful, complete and accurate decision, and then, like Tony Stark, spectacularly turn around on your heels and leave the hall roaring with applause)) But, hell, we do not live in a fairy tale, but by groping, pulling the shade on a stump and by chance people have made a lot of discoveries. What should we do now, not to use them, because they were obtained not by beauty).
To create a profitable Expert Advisor, it is enough to know arithmetic and the basics of Boolean algebra.
Here are the results of a 2021 test of an Expert Advisor in which no indicators are used in the entry and exit conditions, and only two logical variables are used for entry and without any optimization. The entry condition is so simple that it might cause you to laugh and ask yourself, "Why did it only occur to me after all these years?" After all, it's so simple!)
And what do these Boolean variables contain, if not the result of comparing something to something?