And the non-time series thing is just more bullshit with no evidence.
Still, there is a common sense in it. Our initial time is continuous, while in time series it is discrete (by definition).
Substantive work is possible only with discrete time. But transition to discrete time is possible in different ways and it is not necessary to do it only in equal time intervals. It is quite possible to do it by any custom "events". Personally I am closer to the term "Markov moment", because it reflects the main thing - absence of looking into the future. But if someone wants to call it an "event", he is welcome to - as long as he doesn't get confused in his explanations.
Still, there is a common sense in it. In our case, the initial time is continuous, while in time series it is discrete (by definition).
Substantive work is possible only with discrete time. But transition to discrete time is possible in different ways and it is not necessary to do it only in equal time intervals. It is quite possible to do it by any custom "events". Personally I am closer to the term "Markov moment", because it reflects the main thing - absence of looking into the future. But if someone wants to call it an "event", he is welcome to - as long as he doesn't get confused in his explanations.
Well, there is discretisation by time-frames, why complicate it. I made custom ones by "CONDITIONS" or "EVENTS", where there is a bold font from the phone, the same bullshit
Just like the Prada books and other ways.
I don't know how to make the case that any oversampling of vp does nothing in terms of improving prediction. Maybe I'm wrong.
Maxim Dmitrievsky #: Well, there is discretisation by time-frames, why complicate it. I made custom ones by "CONDITIONS" or "EVENTS", where there is a bold font from the phone, the same bullshit
Just like the Prada books and other methods.
I don't know how to make the case that any oversampling of vr does nothing in terms of improving prediction. I may be wrong.
In general, I agree. Any meaningful discretisation is unlikely to improve much without looking into the future. It's just a matter of personal preference.
It is possible that all the vacillation is due to the uncertainty of "what should be the result" - everyone understands the goal differently. There is no goal, there are no intermediate results. There's an exchange of opinions and a search for meaning
---
and the original message in the thread, let me quote:
Machine learning in trading: theory, practice, trading and more.
he is about almost everything ;-) I haven't heard about the absolute "MO is applied in this particular way and no other way, everything else is heresy".
Возможны ли идеальные законы? Чем опасна вера во всесилие закона? Как устроена справедливость? Проект "Поиск утраченного смысла"https://meanings.farm/ru/
Maxim Dmitrievsky #: Typical IT evangelist, warms up the subscriber base with an ingratiating voice
Expands his target audience with references to faith in order to create recognition and trust in the slave masses, and then addiction.
If some people think it's classy, it's worth it.
You have no idea what convolutional networks are, let alone the principles of strong AI, what you can appreciate at all, sit quietly, fap on your catbusters and don't embarrass yourself.
Allow the use of cookies to log in to the MQL5.com website.
Please enable the necessary setting in your browser, otherwise you will not be able to log in.
You are signed in. Two-factor authentication has been disabled. Set it up again and scan a new QR code, or continue with two-factor authentication disabled.
Still, there is a common sense in it. Our initial time is continuous, while in time series it is discrete (by definition).
Substantive work is possible only with discrete time. But transition to discrete time is possible in different ways and it is not necessary to do it only in equal time intervals. It is quite possible to do it by any custom "events". Personally I am closer to the term "Markov moment", because it reflects the main thing - absence of looking into the future. But if someone wants to call it an "event", he is welcome to - as long as he doesn't get confused in his explanations.
Still, there is a common sense in it. In our case, the initial time is continuous, while in time series it is discrete (by definition).
Substantive work is possible only with discrete time. But transition to discrete time is possible in different ways and it is not necessary to do it only in equal time intervals. It is quite possible to do it by any custom "events". Personally I am closer to the term "Markov moment", because it reflects the main thing - absence of looking into the future. But if someone wants to call it an "event", he is welcome to - as long as he doesn't get confused in his explanations.
Eh, so I won't have a competitive advantage again, sadness.....
Well, there is discretisation by time-frames, why complicate it. I made custom ones by "CONDITIONS" or "EVENTS", where there is a bold font from the phone, the same bullshit
In general, I agree. Any meaningful discretisation is unlikely to improve much without looking into the future. It's just a matter of personal preference.
It is possible that all the vacillation is due to the uncertainty of "what should be the result" - everyone understands the goal differently. There is no goal, there are no intermediate results. There's an exchange of opinions and a search for meaning
---
and the original message in the thread, let me quote:
Machine learning in trading: theory, practice, trading and more.
he is about almost everything ;-) I haven't heard about the absolute "MO is applied in this particular way and no other way, everything else is heresy".
Another Awesome Video
Typical IT evangelist, warms up the subscriber base with an ingratiating voice