Discussion of article "The power of ZigZag (part I). Developing the base class of the indicator" - page 2

New comment
 
Anatoli Kazharski:

For study and research.

That's exactly what I don't understand. How can a visualiser help with study/research?

A visualisation is one/two/few/few specific areas. What to do with them and why - visualisation cannot answer.

And TC is already a statistic for all cases, where visualisation plays no role at all.

Besides, indicators are an additional entity in the programme that complicates and slows down the code. And there is no way to do research without fast Optimisation.


I.e. we should somehow define the cutlets and flies.

  1. If the goal is to show something beautifully, it has nothing to do with TC.
  2. If the goal is research for the sake of profit, it is a TS, and visualisation has nothing to do with it.

The second point is a quick (without CopyTicks) and concise implementation of the ZZ inside the TS, where there are no buffers and unnecessary entities. And this would already be a real research.

 
fxsaber:

This is exactly what is not clear to me. How can a visual indicator help with study/research?

A visualisation is one/two/few/few specific areas. What to do with them and why - visualisation cannot answer.

I will try to show in the next articles.
 
fxsaber:

This is exactly what is not clear to me. How can a visual indicator help with study/research?

A visualisation is one/two/few/few specific areas. What to do with them and why - visualisation cannot answer.

And TC is already about putting statistics on all cases, where visualisation plays no role at all.

Besides, indicators are an additional entity in the programme that complicates and slows down the code. And there is no way to do research without fast Optimisation.


I.e. we need to somehow define cutlets and flies.

  1. If the goal is to show something beautifully, it has nothing to do with TC.
  2. If the goal is research for the sake of profit, it is TC, and visualisation has nothing to do with it.

The second point is a quick (without CopyTicks) and concise implementation of the ZZ inside the TS, where there are no buffers and unnecessary entities. And that would already be the real research.

1- Exploration/research without visualisation is wandering in the dark.

"The greatest value of a picture is that it makes us notice things we never expected to see." - John Tukey

So it would be correct to say - there is no research without visualisation.

2. Yes and you have confused cutlets with flies. Profit research and visualisation are very much related and desirable.

Visualisation at all stages of research/development/testing/work is essential and there is never too much of it. No amount of figures will give as much information as one picture.

You are wrong to criticise the author on this point.

Good luck

 
Vladimir Perervenko:

1- Study/research without visualisation - wandering in the dark.

"The greatest value of a picture is that it makes us notice things we never expected to see." - John Tukey

So it would be correct to say - there is no research without visualisation.

2. Yes and you have confused cutlets with flies. Profit research and visualisation are very much related and desirable.

Visualisation at all stages of research/development/testing/work is essential and there is never too much of it. No amount of numbers will give as much information as one picture.

I completely disagree.

You are wrong to criticise the author on this point.

There was no criticism.

 
Vladimir Perervenko:

1- Study/research without visualisation - wandering in the dark.

"The greatest value of a picture is that it makes us notice things we never expected to see." - John Tukey

So it would be correct to say - there is no research without visualisation.

2. Yes and you have confused cutlets with flies. Profit research and visualisation are very much related and desirable.

Visualisation at all stages of research/development/testing/work is essential and there is never too much of it. No amount of numbers will give as much information as one picture.

You are wrong to criticise the author on this point.

Good luck

I also disagree with you about the fact that research without visualisation is, allegedly, wandering in the dark.

In fact, numbers (in qualitative analyses) can provide all the necessary information about the process. Visualisation is secondary.

It is also important what to visualise. If the visualisation is logical, i.e. it reflects not the process itself, but some logically processed, implicit moments (which are difficult to represent "in the mind"), then it is the right visualisation.

That is, you need an algorithmic visualisation, not a primary visualisation.

 
Vladimir Perervenko:

1- Study/research without visualisation - wandering in the dark.

"The greatest value of a picture is that it makes us notice things we never expected to see." - John Tukey

So it would be correct to say - there is no research without visualisation.

2. Yes and you have confused cutlets with flies. Profit research and visualisation are very much related and desirable.

Visualisation at all stages of research/development/testing/work is essential and there is never too much of it. No amount of numbers will give as much information as one picture.

You are wrong to criticise the author on this point.

Good luck

+

Visual perception is a human's speciality. Unlike animals, humans perceive/remember/analyse images, then sounds and lastly other types of information (smell, touch). Man remembers images and words best of all. A person remembers figures worst of all. Changes of figures in tables at high speed are just flickering. They are of no use for understanding. Figures are always information compressed to the limit and learnt in a negligible volume.

People, for example, well understand historical events, but poorly remember their dates. People remember faces well, names worse, and even worse - their telephone numbers. It is necessary to take into account the peculiarities of the human brain. In it, each area plays its own predetermined role, and not all areas are equally effective. It's the way nature intended.

In general, numbers for understanding and perception play a negligible role compared to images and words.

Therefore, visualisation of the process gives a more complete understanding than the same representation through figures.

 
Реter Konow:

Visual perception is the ultimate human endeavour.

Nobody is against this statement or visualisation. The speech was about something else: to write TC on ZigZag or to do research on ZZ, you don't need to visualise it.

It is possible and useful to visualise its knee size distributions and other statistics, but not the ZZ itself.

I.e. it is useful to visualise the result of ZZ application itself.


ZY Visualisation can be useful when you debug logic. For example, you have programmed one thing, but the output is quite different. You can notice the discrepancy on visualisation. But it is a questionable idea to create a crutch in the form of an indicator for this purpose.

 
fxsaber:

No one is against that statement or visualisation. It was about something else: to write TC on ZigZag or to do research on ZZ, you don't need to visualise it.

You can visualise useful distributions of its knee sizes and other statistics, but not the ZZ itself.

I.e. it is useful to visualise the result of ZZ application itself.

Well, one does not prevent the other. Besides, you can compare the correctness of the visual distribution of the sizes of his knees and other statistics with the visual representation of the ZZ and make sure that there are no obvious errors. Why not...

I don't think there can be a study in science where visualisation can be superfluous. It is, first of all, the most effective tool of our thinking. Even if we don't draw something, we imagine it. I mean, we draw it anyway.

 
It is debatable whether images are remembered better than numbers. Let's try to replace numbers with images, instead of the phone number will show a still life of 10 objects. How many people will remember all the objects and their order? There will be the same result as just with numbers.
 
fxsaber:

No one is against that statement or visualisation. It was about something else: to write TC on ZigZag or to do research on ZZ, you don't need to visualise it.

You can visualise useful distributions of its knee sizes and other statistics, but not the ZZ itself.

That is, it is useful to visualise the result of ZZ application itself.


ZY Visualisation can be useful when you debug logic. For example, you have programmed one thing, but the output is quite different. You can notice the discrepancy on visualisation. But it is a questionable idea to create a crutch in the form of an indicator for this purpose.

Everything should be visualised first, otherwise you will not get out of errors.

Besides, an indicator kills two birds with one stone at once - it is a more convenient way of processing price data and visualisation at once.

123456789
New comment