Discussion of article "The power of ZigZag (part I). Developing the base class of the indicator" - 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
The human memory is attuned to meaning, which is the "cement" that glues disparate information together. In order to remember something, a person needs an association that fixes the connection with another thing. Understanding the meaning of the memorised information conditions the memorisation itself. Due to the huge base of familiar images, pictures generate associations much better than numbers. They more quickly lead to the meaning, which records them in the general knowledge base. And order is not important. Anything can "stick" in the brain with anything. Since numbers are almost never supported by random associations because they don't go directly to images (and therefore to meaning), remembering a phone number is much harder than remembering a person's face.
The analogy to a still life of 10 objects is incorrect. The phone number is compressed in the mind. We don't memorise 10 separate numbers, we memorise 3-4. Moreover, we don't remember the first three (city code, country code, company code). Therefore, for a correct comparison, a still life should be reduced to 3-4 objects. When looking at these objects, a person can remember not only the type, but also the size, colour, shadow, and so on. That is, much more information than when remembering a phone number. To finally arrive at a correct comparison, we need only three lines on the graph, which will be equivalent to three memorised digits of the phone number. And they will be much easier and faster for a person to memorise than the number.
Everything has to be visualised first, otherwise you will not get out of mistakes.
Let me say up front that under visualisation I will have only indicators.
And this method does not work for me. To write a TS, visualisation is not necessary. Debug on historical data is very useful, where I use Comment or Print.
Besides, an indicator kills two birds at once - it is a more convenient way of processing price data and visualisation at once.
Convenience is quite debatable. It is not convenient for me at all, for you - yes. But frankly speaking, I don't understand why there are two points of view on it. I accept yours, but I don't understand it.
Could you write a scenario where visualisation when writing a TC is useful?
I will say up front that I will only have indicators under visualisation.
And this method does not work for me. I don't need visualisation to write a TS. Debug on historical data is very useful, where I use Comment or Print.
Convenience is debatable. I don't find it convenient at all, you do. But frankly speaking, I don't understand why there are two points of view on it. I accept yours, but I don't understand it.
Could you write a scenario where visualisation when writing a TC is useful?
You use zigzag too, by the way. Could you comment a little bit, why, or how long? Or the sacred meaning. Because I haven't understood it yet from the article.
The possibility of building different "timeframes" or what, maybe fitting to a certain distributionYou're using a zigzag, too, by the way. Could you comment a little bit on why, or how long? Or the sacred meaning. Because from the article I haven't understood it yet.
To be able to plot different "timeframes" or what, maybe to fit a certain distributionFor debugging - stimulates imagination and judgement
To debug - stimulates imagination and judgement
to debug what
to fine-tune what
movements
movements
ok )))
The human memory is attuned to meaning, which is the "cement" that glues disparate information together. In order to remember something, a person needs an association that fixes the connection with another thing. Understanding the meaning of the memorised information conditions the memorisation itself. Due to the huge base of familiar images, pictures generate associations much better than numbers. They more quickly lead to the meaning, which records them in the general knowledge base. And order is not important. Anything can "stick" in the brain with anything. Since numbers are almost never supported by random associations because they don't go directly to images (and therefore to meaning), remembering a phone number is much harder than remembering a person's face.
The analogy to a still life of 10 objects is incorrect. The phone number is compressed in the mind. We don't memorise 10 separate numbers, we memorise 3-4. Moreover, we don't remember the first three (city code, country code, company code). Therefore, for a correct comparison, a still life should be reduced to 3-4 objects. When looking at these objects, a person can remember not only the type, but also the size, colour, shadow, and so on. That is, much more information than when remembering a phone number. To finally arrive at a correct comparison, we need only three lines on the graph, which will be equivalent to three memorised digits of the phone number. And they will be much easier and faster for a person to memorise than the number.
I hasten to inform you - in a modern telephone number there are 10 digits - 8-xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx-xxx, even more, instead of the first eight can be a country code and the next three digits, not a city code at all. If memorising a phone was reduced to 3-4 digits, there would be no problems with memorising it.
Have you conducted experiments that a person remembers looking at a picture and how many can reproduce it?
Faces are memorised only by recognition. Try to make a sketch of your own grandmother.
You're using a zigzag, by the way. Can you comment a little bit on why, or how long?
I use it, for example, to filter characters. At least, the number of ticks is reduced by an order of magnitude. I mean, 90% of the ticks are useless.
That's the idea that they are useless, and that's where the idea of using ZZ in TC comes from.
I will say up front that I will only have indicators under visualisation.
And this method does not work for me. I don't need visualisation to write a TS. Debug on historical data is very useful, where I use Comment or Print.
Convenience is debatable. I don't find it convenient at all, you do. But frankly speaking, I don't understand why there are two points of view on it. I accept yours, but I don't understand it.
Could you write a scenario where visualisation when writing a TC is useful?
I don't know how complex systems you have coded. How can you perform complex data analysis without an indicator and make it work quickly? You can't. Most likely, you have coded systems of the corresponding level.