Random wandering - page 31
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
Yes, here's an addendum for those who haven't noticed themselves.
Anyone who has checked themselves into a casino here on the forum starts by discussing "pennies". I'm not pointing fingers. They recognize themselves from afar.
And here thisUladzimir Izerski constantly puts pitfalls in their way and prevents them from convincingly applying their flawed casino experience to the financial markets.
friday, september 3rd...it's all coming together and vova's been charging straight in the morning
Yes, yes.... Autumn.
Friday, 3rd September...everything came together and Vova has been charged straight from the morning
Saturn's activity is hard to hide).
Looks like someone has switched to heavier substances :-)
Syrup oils shouldn't cause such a wondrous effect
Looks like someone has switched to heavier substances :-)
liquor oils aren't supposed to have that wondrous effect.
You mean you? Or are you talking about yourself?
This forum is not about the quality of substances, it's about financial markets.
You don't have to translate your fantasies into narrow fictitious dislikes.
And on this forum they don't want me to say anything. They immediately hammer me with posts saying that I'm PRing, advertising, and other nastiness.
I don't feel like explaining and demonstrating something new and advanced after all this time.
Sorry, didn't mean to sound toxic. But it's really hard for me to imagine that you're talking in all seriousness. I'm not asserting anything. Isn't there a logical contradiction in saying that on every quantum of the graph the result is random, but on a large sample it will turn out to be non-random? Well if it's hard to imagine, you can always do an experiment. By the way, an electronic pseudorandom number generator is not suitable for experimentation. It's designed to keep a record of the numbers falling out, and make the output numbers fall out in equal numbers. And the main function is built on a processor clock, for example. Here's a simple way of getting a random number is to take an analogue amplifier, for example. There's shot noise there. Although I think your conclusions are wrong, I wish you good luck on your path as a researcher.
Sorry, didn't mean to sound toxic. But I really find it hard to imagine that you are being completely serious. I'm not asserting anything. Isn't there a logical contradiction in saying that on every quantum of the graph the result is random, but on a large sample it will turn out to be non-random? Well if it's hard to imagine, you can always do an experiment. By the way, an electronic pseudorandom number generator is not suitable for experimentation. It's designed to keep a record of how the numbers fall out, and make sure that the output numbers fall out in equal numbers. And the main function is built on a processor clock, for example. Here's a simple way of getting a random number is to take an analogue amplifier, for example. There's shot noise there. Although I think your conclusions are flawed, I wish you good luck on your path as a researcher.
No need to apologize, everyone here is the same (myself included)) and wants to appear smarter and taller than others. They are human beings))
__________
Believe me, I'm serious.
You won't deny the Law of Large Numbers, will you? Really?
With the example of a "coin" we can trace the process from the first flip to infinity.
Based on the Law of Large Numbers, we can run a straight line. from the first throw to infinity.
Because the results of the throws may be a series with the same + or -, there is a deviation of the graph from our straight line.
This is wherethe Law of Large Numbers will not allow for infinite deviation in one direction or the other.
If you get the point, that's good. I don't intend to explain the rest of the nuances here.
There's no need to apologise, everyone here is the same (myself included)) and wants to appear smarter and taller than others. They are human beings))
__________
Believe me, I'm being serious.
You won't deny the Law of Large Numbers, will you? Really?
With the example of a "coin" we can trace the process from the first flip to infinity.
Based on the Law of Large Numbers, we can go a straight line. from the first throw to infinity.
Because the results of the throws may be a series with the same + or -, there is a deviation of the graph from our straight line.
This is wherethe Law of Large Numbers will not allow for infinite deviation in one direction or the other.
If you get the point, that's good. I do not intend to explain the rest of the nuances here.
There's no need to apologise, everyone here is the same (myself included)) and wants to appear smarter and taller than others. They are human beings))
__________
Believe me, I'm being serious.
You won't deny the Law of Large Numbers, will you? Really?
With the example of a "coin" we can trace the process from the first flip to infinity.
Based on the Law of Large Numbers, we can go a straight line. from the first throw to infinity.
Because the results of the throws may be a series with the same + or -, there is a deviation of the graph from our straight line.
This is wherethe Law of Large Numbers will not allow for infinite deviation in one direction or the other.
If you get the point, that's good. I do not intend to explain the rest of the nuances here.