Discussion of article "The power of ZigZag (part I). Developing the base class of the indicator" - page 5

New comment
 
Vitaly Muzichenko:

Exactly. Any indicator is based on prices, so when you look at how the current TS works, you can't help but think how to write the next one, perhaps in the places of accumulation to enter not by the market, but by pending. After writing it, you look at the visualisations again, and you see that instead of a stop you should try a limit. Then it turns out that you may need to change the indicator calculation, or limit the trading time, or put limits in the night session, and in the day session enter either at the market, or with stops, ....

In general, you can't go anywhere without visualisation.

It's bad then.

 
fxsaber:

Too bad, then.

Why, what kind of TC can you come up with with this set of numbers: 1234567, 7654321, 1357, 642, 231453, 9876, 7846, 9275638, 773524, 95827485, 66718364 ?

Just wondering - how (?) without ever looking anywhere or with an eye on the market at all, can we figure out what the numbers have told us?

 
Artyom Trishkin:

Why, what kind of TC can you come up with with this set of numbers: 1234567, 7654321, 1357, 642, 231453, 9876, 7846, 9275638, 773524, 95827485, 66718364 ?

Just wondering - how (?) without ever looking anywhere or with an eye on the market at all, can we figure out what the numbers told us?

Well, I have it somehow. Those who are engaged in MO do not suffer from indicator-building. At the input there is a number of ticks.

It is suggested to make bars out of them, then create indicator buffers on the bars, look at it for many hours until another idea strikes. Frankly speaking, this is a strange approach.

 

I apologise to the author for diverting the discussion away from the point of the article with my post. I did not envisage a discussion on this issue. Everyone has their own experience, level and area of interest and both approaches have a right to life.

Good luck

 
fxsaber:

Well, I can do it somehow. Those who are engaged in MO are not suffering from indicator-building. There are a number of ticks on the input.

...

Is MO supposed to be machine learning? Or Tibetan fortune-telling?

And it would be worth visualising to understand what they are doing, because mostly their actions are at the level of a monkey with glasses, instead of MO - machine learning, you get MO - Tibetan divination.

 
Dmitry Fedoseev:

IO is supposed to be machine learning? Or Tibetan fortune-telling?

One.

 

Allow me my five cents on this subject.

After reading the thread, I came to the conclusion that there is a dispute between blind wise men groping an elephant, which they have never known before. One touches the ear, the second the leg, the third the trunk. if you make a picture based on the sum of their opinions - can you imagine what you get ???. (by the way, the fallacy of such an opinion will be seen ONLY with the help of visual comparison of the original source with the picture, by the way MOMENTALLY, without any expenditure of time, computer resources, etc.).

In order to direct the dispute in a useful direction it is necessary to define the concepts. It seems that each of the parties puts its own meaning into the notion of VISUALISATION.

 
I suggest that everyone who is interested in this discussion and who wishes to participate in it, before expressing their opinion - give a definition of their understanding of this term, or join the one already published here by someone else earlier.
 

Please tell me, in the archive to this article there are four files TestZZZ_01.mq5, TestZZZ_02.mq5, TestZZZ_04.mq3, TestZZ_04.mq4 attached

01 and 02 compiled normally. 03 and 04 refuse to compile, the compiler gives the error

'GetZigZagData' - none of the overloads can be applied to the function call TestZZZ_03.mq5 77 15

If I understand correctly, there are two versions of the same function (different parameters), which should not be the case.

could be one of 2 function(s) TestZZZ_03.mq5 77 15

void CZigZagModule::GetZigZagData(const int,int,int,const string,const ENUM_TIMEFRAMES,const datetime,const datetime) ZigZagModule.mqh 52 22

void CZigZagModule::GetZigZagData(const double&[],const double&[],const datetime&[]) ZigZagModule.mqh 51 22

Here's how it looks like in the C:\Program Files\Alpari MT5\MQL5\Include\Addons\Indicators\ZigZag\ZigZagModule.mqh incloud


//|Gets the ZZZ data from the passed arrays |

//+------------------------------------------------------------------+

void CZigZigZagModule::GetZigZagData(const double &zz_h[],const double &zz_l[],const datetime &time[])

и

//|| Gets ZZ data from the passed handle |

//+------------------------------------------------------------------+

void CZigZagModule::GetZigZagData(const int handle,int buffer_num_highs,int buffer_num_lows,


Could you please tell me how to overcome this annoying thing????

const string symbol,const ENUM_TIMEFRAMES period,

const datetime start_time,const datetime stop_time)





 

class CZigZagModule

{

protected:

//

//

void GetZigZagData(const double &zz_h[],const double &zz_l[],const datetime &time[]);

void GetZigZagData(const int handle,int buffer_num_highs,int buffer_num_lows,
const string symbol,const ENUM_TIMEFRAMES period,
const datetime start_time,const datetime stop_time);

//

//

}


Here it is written in a row, in the neighbouring lines. Experts, please tell me, where is it wrong, in my head or in the code? How to fix it????

123456789
New comment