Machine learning in trading: theory, models, practice and algo-trading - page 3328

[mytarmailS]

That's a funny number

[lynxntech]

mytarmailS #:

That's a funny number

wait now for Rena )

[Renat Akhtyamov]

lynxntech #:

wait now for Rena )

I don't have time for this.

I'm writing a multi-strategy robot, only it will not select a tool for thechanalysis, but a strategy at once.

everything is there, you don't have to go far:

Strategies for using US dollar futures and options - Moscow Exchange | Markets (moex.com)

[lynxntech]

Whoa, Chandler's off the show.

[Maxim Dmitrievsky]

Actual information for those who have just started to learn the 1st year of uni programme. In particular, Aristotelian or propositional logic. Formal logic says that expressions must be consistent, which was very well learnt to be used by sophists like Katschik, who were condemned even by Plato. Logical connections can be associative or causal. That is, a formally logical statement is not always true.

I was inspired by some new video clip of his where he "exposes" another ptushnik who can't even connect two words.

In the same way, I remember in uni, there was a subject "Categories" or categories of consciousness. For example, what is a subject, object, matter, space and so on. They have about the same relation to the real world as formal logic. That is, they don't exist in the real world :)

That is, if you abstract away from Savvateev's dirty fingernails, you will realise that he is dealing with mathematics as it originally was. Not tied to the real world, but to categories of consciousness.

[Ivan Butko]

Maxim Dmitrievsky #:
Actual information for those who have just started to learn the 1st year of uni programme. In particular, Aristotelian or propositional logic. Formal logic says that expressions must be consistent, which was very well learnt to be used by sophists like Katschik, who were condemned even by Plato. Logical connections can be associative or causal. That is, a formally logical statement is not always true.

Inspired by some new video clip of his, where he "exposes" another ptushnik, who can't even connect two words.

In the same way, I remember in uni, there was a subject "Categories" or categories of consciousness. For example, what is a subject, object, matter, space and so on. They have about the same relation to the real world as formal logic. That is, they don't exist in the real world :)

That is, if you abstract away from Savvateev's dirty fingernails, you will realise that he is dealing with mathematics as it originally was. Not tied to the real world, but to categories of consciousness.

[Maxim Dmitrievsky]

Ivan Butko #:

It's interesting to hear the arguments of the zombo-scientists. Their own, not imposed ones. Because their own have not formed :)

And yes, the post is provocative.

But, there have been many such pseudoscientific sects in history. And people also blindly followed their guru, because it was impossible to prove or disprove, due to intellectual abilities.

[Maxim Dmitrievsky]

The only proof is the simulation of its repulsion in programs made by users. But if you programme Einstein's continuum, it works out too :)

And just like his theory is not used anywhere, neither is Relativity. So they are at least on equal footing so far in terms of their uselessness :)

And what's the point of rewriting textbooks to replace one crap with another?

[Maxim Dmitrievsky]

Those who have studied philosophy know that the categories warm-cold, forward-backward, continuous-discrete, space-matter, soul-body, god-devil are categories of consciousness, not of the "real world". Going even further, they are ways of thinking, otherwise, without separating, there is nothing to think about.

Neural networks work on the same principle as comps.

Without having real experimental data, you can't argue with a sophist because "everything is logical". While in reality there is no cause and effect relationship, everything is at the level of associations, like here are magnets repelling, or on attraction everything will collapse. "Space is infinite" - nobody will check it, will they? Just like "there is a God" - prove that there isn't, you just can't see him. A simple associative series.

It's not a scientific approach, it's sophistry. Quite primitive.

[Maxim Dmitrievsky]

Astronomers used to see the universe as the earth and the firmament to which the stars were nailed. Now with Katschitzik, it's an endless carpet of galaxies. What I see, I sing. Oh, how many wondrous discoveries we've made.