A good mathematician should be good in forex. - page 2
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
I had made many researches for my ms thesis about financial data, gone deep (hilbert spaces, fourier and wavelet transforms..., difusion, stochastic differential equations... and even (dont lough) relativistic aproaches). Result is redicilous, it is a lie, a big LIE, only true for unrealistic scientists.
Mathematics serves for analytical description of processes and relations.
If you can describe in a formal language what you see, you have a large advantage over someone who doesn't know to do that.
However, describing itself and specificating mathematic methods doesn't make you a mathematician. you need to know and truly understand what you are doing.
It seems that you failed at the very beginning, by not understanding the consequences of the fact that PA is non-stationary stochastic process, which can be concluded out of claims you made.
no one needs advanced mathematics here, intermediate statistics at most!
it is a stupid idea (sorry), I had made many researches for my ms thesis about financial data, gone deep (hilbert spaces, fourier and wavelet transforms..., difusion, stochastic differential equations... and even (dont lough) relativistic aproaches). Result is redicilous, it is a lie, a big LIE, only true for unrealistic scientists.
They publish articles on mathematical finance, look at them. Only few tells the truth about this dream (like Engle). Many tells about only theories which relies on failed axioms (simple examples: normality, continiuty). All of them results useless methods which only satisfies dreamers.
I wander about the "true" votes, tell us why? mathematically? or cut the b.s.
This is a very interesting topic. I've searched for articles about Engle and would be spending some time reading his conclusions.
If you would, could you please expand upon what is the Lie vs the Truth about this dream.
Mathematics serves for analytical description of processes and relations.
If you can describe in a formal language what you see, you have a large advantage over someone who doesn't know to do that.
However, describing itself and specificating mathematic methods doesn't make you a mathematician. you need to know and truly understand what you are doing.
It seems that you failed at the very beginning, by not understanding the consequences of the fact that PA is non-stationary stochastic process, which can be concluded out of claims you made.
In other-words, are you saying that the mathematicians know what they're doing and therefore they're more likely to succeed?
I wonder why a mathematician haven't publish a book or something stating how to transform a non-stationary stochastic process into financial gains.
If someone has ... apologize for my ignorance. It's not that I dis-agree that mathematicians are better ...
I'm no mathematician and therefore I'm just trying to hear more from both sides of the argument.
...
It seems that you failed at the very beginning, by not understanding the consequences of the fact that PA is non-stationary stochastic process, which can be concluded out of claims you made.
I wonder why a mathematician haven't publish a book or something stating how to transform a non-stationary stochastic process into financial gains.
Why didn't you check out what non-stationary stochastic process means?
This reveals exactly the point of all this: there is no thinking, just blindly using some definitions and trying them out without understanding.
(i am not saying that you are not thinking etc. just trying to point out the lack of method, analysis and understanding, which i was describing when i said that being a mathematician is more than knowing to write formulas)
NSSP means that the PA (Price Action) is completely random and that every moment in the market is unique.
So there is no transformation function or analytical expression that can predict the value or give you the edge in any way, based on PA, i.e. the stream of values you get from broker.
Why didn't you check out what non-stationary stochastic process means?
This reveals exactly the point of all this: there is no thinking, just blindly using some definitions and trying them out without understanding.
(i am not saying that you are not thinking etc. just trying to point out the lack of method, analysis and understanding)
NSSP means that the PA (Price Action) is completely random and that every moment in the market is unique.
So there is no transformation function or analytical expression that can predict the value or give you the edge in any way, based on PA, i.e. the stream values you get from broker.
Thank you for the definition. I taught I knew what it meant because I've come across the term a few times. I was busy checking-out about Robert Engle.
I taught it ( non-stationary stochastic ) meant that it was random at times ... but sometimes non-random. Like a lop-sided bell-shape curve for example.
Believed that the non-random aspects could be capitalized upon for limited periods of time.
Obviously, there's allot of dis-agreement amongst economists about markets being truly-random.
I mean, how does someone explain all the successful traders?
I mean, how does someone explain all the successful traders?
Because you don't need to know what is going to happen next to make money :)
OK, this is a statement out of "Trading in the Zone" by Mark Douglas, a book which i can only recommend :)
Although it is logical to me, i cannot prove this statement to be right or wrong.
But i believe that you can make money because there are at least two rules that are valid for PA on the market.
So you can further try to explore these rules, based on distribution statistics, although the statistics is unfortunately going to change, what is clear from definition of the process besides being logical.
Because you don't need to know what is going to happen next to make money :)
OK, this is a statement out of "Trading in the Zone" by Mark Douglas which i can only recommend :)
Although it is logical to me, i cannot prove this statement to be right or wrong.
But, i believe that you can make money because there are at least two rules that are valid for PA on the market.
So you can further try to explore these rules, based on distribution statistics, which is unfortunately going to change, which is both clear from definition of the process, and logic.
Thanks again for your time and recommendations ... for what its worth, I do agree with your first statement.
Just trying to hold on-to money made in forex is constantly appearing like an exercise for a life-time.
I'll be sure to check-out Mark Douglas.
Just trying to hold on-to money made in forex is constantly appearing like an exercise for a life-time.
In a way, point is that you have to constantly adapt the system for changes in distribution.
But are you not interested in which these two rules that are valid for PA would be? :)
One is obvious, and one is conducted out of the random walk model.
As they might be more for which i don't know or at least i am not aware of, i would like everybody to give their educated guesses, and i will confirm if you are right.
So ... let the games begin! :)
I think that normal mathematician would achieve similar results in forex as anyone else, but to have some abnormal mathematician as friend/brother/adviser, preferably autistic, schizophrenic, or similar mental disorders which on the other hand (rarely or sometimes or often) gives high talent in other aspects of life, and these people may be theoretically more profitable in lottery, casinos, hazard games, and betting. The Forex market and other financial instruments, as I think are a combination of rational and irrational elements. However, normal people are not able to think abnormally, even if they try to achieve it. Thus normal people cannot comprehend fuzzy logic involved in trading financial markets. Cognitive behaviour and speculative sentiment is often more crucial for market participants than any logically accepted reasoning as technical/fundamental analysis. This is based upon my speculation and my personal opinion only.