Bernoulli, Moab-Laplace theorem; Kolmogorov criterion; Bernoulli scheme; Bayes formula; Chebyshev inequalities; Poisson distribution law; Fisher, Pearson, Student, Smirnov etc. theorems, models, simple language, without formulas. - 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
Roma, may I ask you not to write here. Everyone has understood your point of view, and Alexei has shown the opposite with his post.
If you are so smart, why are you such a villager?
:-) Villagers were asleep, my questions in the branch were unanswered - decided to look in the next branch... :-) Now already awake after FIVE!!! - leaving...
Fuck! Why are all intellectually advanced threads attacked to one degree or another? The forum is there for people to group their interests into threads. No, it's all about fighting in obscure ways.
This thread is a good one, for it lays out the theoretical foundations in a simple language (thanks Alexey). You should be grateful! Sometimes I read trading forums in English, where everything is calm, clear and informative.
"What do you mean in plain language, without formulas??? One contradicts the other... :-)
And the place of formulas is in the textbook, and some authors copied them from their notes-
or have already memorized them in the course of their teaching.
I know a mathematician. For him, maths is "self-sufficient,"
which is probably why he can't answer a single question
of mathematics in practice.
The card example says that the sequence of cards in the last shuffle is all the information we have to calculate the probability of different sequences in the next shuffle. Adding the results of previous shuffles does not give us any new information.
The history of shuffle cards contains information about the frequency of certain shuffle events, and hence information about the actual statistical probability of these events, which can be used to determine future results, and which obviously affects these results.
statistical probability of these events, which can be used to determine future results and which obviously affects these results.
The history of shuffle cards contains information about the frequency of certain shuffle events, and hence information about the actual statistical probability of these events, which can be used to determine future results, and which obviously affects these results.
statistical probability of those events, which can be used to determine future results and which obviously affects those results.
MoneyJinn, we haven't moved on to Markovian processes yet. You can chew gum about them all you want. And a better example can be constructed.
Bernoulli should deal with it, it is the very, very basics, on which almost all laws of large numbers are built...
P.S. By the way, what I wrote about Bernoulli, all clear, or what? No one has any questions?
P.P.S. There should be no illusions in this thread that this clarification "without formulas" will be sufficient for application. It is only an explanation on a popular level, for housewives. But even it gives some sense of where something can be applied. The understanding of these theorems comes only with the solution of problems, in which there is no way without formulas.
1783 if memory serves me correctly. D.Bernouli described the St. Petersburg paradox, IMHO it would be a good idea for absorbers to study the work of 228 years ago.
And in general I do not really understand what is difficult about a discrete theorist. Gentlemen, there is no other way to find the time and energy in yourself to study it.
Why a bell? Why two wings? What's on the right? What's on the left?
Are you from das epsilon?
Trying to solve the problem by introducing the concept of "series" is purely a technical trick?
Was the problem solved by someone without the concept?
Somehow it reminds me of Roma's reasoning:
Do we buy these back? Or should we make new ones?
Or is it all limited to the concept of "discrete"?
P.S. By the way, what I wrote about Bernoulli is all clear, isn't it? Does nobody have any questions?
P.P.S. There should be no illusions in this thread that such a clarification "without formulas" would be sufficient to apply. It is only an explanation on a popular level, for housewives. But even it gives some sense of where something can be applied. The understanding of these theorems comes only with the solution of problems, in which there is no way without formulas.
If there are any questions, I don't think participants will be embarrassed. Also, don't be afraid of reprimands and ridicule from clever participants of the topic. Those who "don't understand what's complicated about a discrete theorist" are at least no smarter than those who really don't understand it, if only because they can't put themselves in the shoes of others.
There are no illusions, of course.
MoneyJinn, we haven't moved on to Markov processes yet. You can chew all you want about them. Yes and a better example can be constructed.
Bernoulli should be dealt with, these are the very basics on which almost all the laws of large numbers are based...
P.S. By the way, what I wrote about Bernoulli is all clear, isn't it? No one has any questions?
P.P.S. There should be no illusions in this thread that such explanation "without formulas" will be sufficient for application. It is only an explanation on a popular level, for housewives. But even it gives some sense of where something can be applied. The understanding of these theorems comes only with the solution of problems, in which there is no way without formulas.
No need to cling to words, apparently "without formulas" meant that formulas must tend to form arithmetic, otherwise it's very problematic to transfer them to mql.
As for the rest, please develop your thoughts, the topic is very necessary.
Without such topics, the forum would slip down to the "you're a fool" level :)
Dersu: Почему колокол?
Dersu, it is not exactly a bell, because it is a binomial distribution, not a normal distribution. As the number of trials increases n, according to Laplace's theorem, the binomial distribution tends to be normal. Here are pictures of histograms showing what happens when n is small. It is generally assumed that when n*p > 5, the distribution is already almost identical to the normal distribution.
How come there are two wings? What's on the right? Shaw on the left?
Because of Bernoulli's formulas, but they have exclamation marks, you have to read the expression. See the pictures above, if you don't like the formulas.
Are you from das epsilon?
It's the same epsilon that's in epsilon-delta language (they still give it a bit in high school). If you think that's too cool for you, here's a more or less correct formulation of Bernoulli's theorem:
The probability limit of an arbitrarily small deviation of a frequency from the probability of an event in Bernoulli's scheme is one.
If this is not clear either, here is very imprecise (the limit in the usual sense is not there, it is only by probability), but for the humanists it is quite clear:
The frequency of an event as the number of trials in Bernoulli's scheme increases tends to its probability.
Trying to solve the problem by introducing the concept of "series" is purely a technical trick?
Has the problem been solved by someone without the concept?
It is a technique adopted in tervers and it is extremely effective. And what problem should be solved?
Or is it limited to the concept of "discrete"?
No, why not? It's just that "discrete terver" is easier to grasp.