Machine learning in trading: theory, models, practice and algo-trading - page 3330
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
Disappointment came after the promise of a bright future and super UFO technology was replaced by everyday YouTube blabbering about how stupid everyone is :) The beginning was fun.
On the theoretical model of gravitational interaction - impossible to confirm or deny. Intuitively, if this interaction is basic, then all planetary systems should sometimes form crystal lattices and molecules, which does not happen with macrobodies, although these systems have the same planetary structure (according to his theory) as Rutherford's atoms.
Still, the microcosm is a theorwer, and the macrocosm is a matstat based on that theorwer. It cannot be intuitively understood, as in good old physics, "shut up and calculate" say current physicists. Nature has not built into human beings Kantian a priori mechanisms of cognition of probability, so intuition does not work there at all.
But it does not prevent separate organisms to invent their own "intuitive physics") Rather even on the contrary - it helps, because the field of activity is pure (it is impossible to make quantum-mechanics intuitive), and masses need intuitive picture of reality.
Still, the microcosm is a theorist, and the macrocosm is a matstat based on this theorist. It is impossible to understand it intuitively, as in good old physics, "shut up and calculate" say current physicists. Nature has not built into man Kantian a priori mechanisms of cognition of probability, so intuition does not work there at all.
But it does not prevent separate organisms to invent their own "intuitive physics") Rather even on the contrary - it helps, because the field of activity is pure (it is impossible to make quantum-mechanics intuitive), and masses need intuitive picture of reality.
All you need to know about opponents of Katschik:
O: Space is curved!
K: And what does he bend there?
O: You are a fool!!!
Everything you need to know about Katrzyk's opponents:
A: Space is curved!
K: What's he bending?
A: You're the fool!!!!
Apparently, the curvature tensor of Minkowski space is changing.
Why something should bend there is a question for the patient himself.
Minkowski spaces
Oh, I see. All opponents have moved to the four-dimensional one, because there is nothing to do here, the location is explored, but they are poking logic, they are annoying me
Still, the microcosm is a theorwer, and the macrocosm is a matstat based on this theorwer. It is impossible to understand it intuitively, as in good old physics, "shut up and calculate" say the present physicists. Nature has not built into man Kantian a priori mechanisms of cognition of probability, so intuition does not work there at all.
But it does not prevent separate organisms to invent their own "intuitive physics") Rather even on the contrary - it helps, because the field of activity is pure (it is impossible to make quantum-mechanics intuitive), and masses need intuitive picture of reality .
For several thousand years the masses and even very educated people of the time believed in three elephants and three whales.
Over the last few thousand years, a wide variety of philosophical systems have accumulated to interpret the world around us.
Although not everyone realises, in reality it all comes down to belief in a particular philosophical system. There is ALWAYS a belief, though the apologist may not realise it.
In any theory, including philosophical theories, if they cover the world around them fully enough, there are ALWAYS provisions - axioms, hypotheses, which are not proved inside the theory built on them, and which are the object of faith. Strictly in accordance with Gödel. And then there is the question of convenience, the question of "naturalness" of interpretation of surrounding realities.
If we take dialectical materialism and historical materialism, then understanding their limitations, for example, the absence of moral attitudes, allows us to interpret the surrounding reality quite adequately.
And if we take some Kant, who has everything in his head, then blows on this very head cannot be understood within the framework of this philosophical system.
For several thousand years the masses and even the very educated people of the time believed in three elephants and three whales.
Over the last few thousand years, a large number of different philosophical systems have accumulated to interpret the world around us.
Although not everyone realises, in reality it all comes down to belief in a particular philosophical system. There is ALWAYS faith, though the apologist may not realise it.
In any theory, including philosophical theories, if they cover the world around them fully enough, there are ALWAYS provisions - axioms, hypotheses, which are not proved inside the theory built on them, and which are the object of faith. Strictly in accordance with Gödel. And then there is the question of convenience, the question of "naturalness" of interpretation of surrounding realities.
If we take dialectical materialism and historical materialism, then understanding their limitations, for example, the absence of moral attitudes, then allows us to interpret the surrounding reality quite adequately.
And if we take some Kant, who has everything in his head, then blows on this very head cannot be understood within the framework of this philosophical system.
Faith ends when one dips into a puddle. The harsh real world begins. In which there are no fantasies, no myths, no assumptions. A boring logical world, you can't even substitute concepts - you can't build anything sensible: neither a starship, nor a Death Star, nor a mole-hole.
Poor people are pulled out of the Minkowski space in which they rest, so that they don't see this unbending world. We should not bend to the unbending world, let it bend to us.
------
When a model does not describe the real world - it is useless in the real world.
It can study itself, all sorts of topologies, dimensionless points, curve=straight, 2*2=5 and so on.
The main thing is to set a fantasy vector and fit mathematics to it. She'll be able to, like a good lawyer who got a scumbag out of court innocent.
But, if something doesn't apply to the real world (physical) - it's physically useless.
If it relates to thought tasks - it will remain a thought task.
But the problem is that all sorts of Hawkingians get into physics specifically. For some reason. Fantasies about curvature of space, when there is no definition of space - this is the claim of Katshchyik.
And this is the puddle in which all(!) his opponents, even scientists or professors, I don't remember who was there at his streamings, plunge into.
Vaughn, Svatheev, if I'm not mistaken, out of the blue, poured verbal shit on Katshchyik, frankly almost with a mat.... just like that! Hysterically! They didn't even have streams together. He didn't even familiarise himself with theses, claims, etc. The face of modern mathematicians.
UPD
The only complaint about Katschik is why he hasn't built anything so far. I don't care if it's in a garage. On streamers gathered engineers and run. But, no.
That's a yes, can't argue with that.
Oh, I see. All opponents moved to the four-dimensional one, because there is nothing to do here, the location is explored, but they are poking logic, they are annoying me
There have always been four dimensions in mathematical models of physics, since the beginning of their creation by Descartes/Newton. The fact that one dimension is very different from the others within human intuition is a different matter.
What's wrong with logic? Basically, it's like Aristotle - models are built by induction, and conclusions from them are built by deduction. As long as the model works and gives the result (for example, in the form of satellite navigation on the patient's smartphone) it is used, if it does not work for new requirements - they will refine it to work.
For several thousand years the masses and even the very educated people of the time believed in three elephants and three whales.
Over the last few thousand years, a large number of different philosophical systems have accumulated to interpret the world around us.
Although not everyone realises, in reality it all comes down to belief in a particular philosophical system. There is ALWAYS faith, though the apologist may not realise it.
In any theory, including philosophical theories, if they cover the surrounding world in a sufficiently complete way, there are ALWAYS provisions - axioms, hypotheses, which are not proved inside the theory built on them, and which are the object of faith. Strictly in accordance with Gödel. And then there is the question of convenience, the question of "naturalness" of interpretation of surrounding realities.
If we take dialectical materialism and historical materialism, then understanding their limitations, for example, the absence of moral attitudes, then allows us to interpret the surrounding reality quite adequately.
And if we take some Kant, who has everything in his head, then blows on this very head cannot be understood within the framework of this philosophical system.
Historical materialism has long been rotten - the archaeology of the last forty years has shown that it is unable to explain the real history of the emergence of civilisation.
Kant did not say that everything is in the head - this is more about the English empiricists, with whom he was debating. Roughly speaking, he is talking about the fact that it is impossible to cognise reality as such, but only through a priori images built in beforehand.
Historical materialism has long been rotten - the archaeology of the last forty years has shown that it cannot explain the real story of the emergence of civilisation.
Kant did not say that everything is in the head - this is more about the English empiricists with whom he was debating. Roughly speaking, he is talking about the fact that it is impossible to cognise reality as such, but only through a priori images built in beforehand.
Just for the sake of truth: archaeology can NOT refute historical materialism because the subject is different.
Archaeology is about shards.
Historical materialism is about the reasons for the development of mankind, in which they see the development of productive forces and labour productivity, about the secondary nature of social consciousness. For us, the provisions of historical materialism on the role of the individual in history are extremely interesting and effective.
Just for the sake of truth: archaeology can NOT disprove historical materialism since the subject matter is different.
Archaeology is about shards.
Historical materialism is about the reasons for the development of mankind, in which they see the development of productive forces and productivity of labour, about the secondary nature of social consciousness. For us, the provisions of historical materialism on the role of the individual in history are extremely interesting and effective.
Excavations of the most ancient temple complex of Göbekli-Tepe showed the fallacy of this view. Wandering hunter-gatherers for unknown reasons began to build cultic buildings, and the emergence of productive economy was only a by-product. There are no skulls, by the way, because it was pre-ceramic Neolithic.
Ideas rule the world, and the idea of Marxism is a good example of that (although, in itself, the idea is not so good).