A little surprised :) Thought I'd share and ask a NOT rhetorical question. - page 19
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
Bears, I'm not selling anything. :) I'll give it away for free if I'm in the mood for it.
But discover mass sales. :)
The speed at which you change your plans is staggering. Stunning speed. Stunning evidence, staggering posts.
Then it's the law of the genre, "you're all fools and can't be cured," "My daddy's an astronaut" and "I'll leave you and you'll die" followed by a loud slamming of the door.
You can slam the door several times. The main thing is to make it work.
The speed at which you change your plans is staggering. Stunning speed. Stunning evidence, staggering posts.
Then it's the law of the genre, "you're all fools and can't be cured," "My dad is an astronaut" and "I'll leave you and you'll die" should be followed by a loud slamming of the door.
You can slam the door several times. The main thing is to make it work.
Am I changing plans? You're out of your mind. :) Selling for 20 bucks or giving away for free is the same thing with the volume of potential buyers.
I'll quit? :) Bears, I already told you to leave. :) I can do it again. I don't mind.
Am I changing plans? You're out of your mind. :)
Give me an example of when conversion to double is necessary?
In multi-currency analysis, a fundamental action is almost always required: conversion to the logarithm of the price.
Unfortunately, it cannot be done in integer arithmetic with sufficient accuracy.
Don't make me look for your post.
In multicurrency analysis, a fundamental action is almost always needed: a conversion to the logarithm of the price.
Unfortunately, this cannot be done in integer arithmetic with sufficient accuracy.
Come on, I'm just laughing. Guys - I've got about 22 gigabytes of ticks on 20 characters right now. How do you figure that? :)
Anyway - it's strange that I'm still writing here, where the ban. D.fedor what the hell - promised so go ahead. :)
Calculation of MA of 10 values
SUM (10,11, 12, 10, 25, 14, 9, 21, 17, 10 ) 139
------------------------------------------------------ = ------ = 13.9
1010
If we take a point value of 1000, we get
SUM ( 10000,11000, 12000, 10000, 25000, 14000, 9000, 21000, 17000, 10000 ) = 139000/10=13900 ( points )
You can fool yourself as often and as long as you like, but the rest of us can't always be fooled.
Take a numerical series of prices from real life:
2011.04.01 14:00,1.41563,1.41588,1.40900,1.41018,4863,0
2011.04.01 15:00,1.41022,1.41160,1.40614,1.40654,4841,0
2011.04.01 16:00,1.40655,1.41480,1.40616,1.41440,5160,0
2011.04.01 17:00,1.41442,1.42140,1.41332,1.42115,5216,0
2011.04.01 18:00,1.42114,1.42151,1.41935,1.42151,3220,0
2011.04.01 19:00,1.42155,1.42246,1.42117,1.42185,2537,0
2011.04.01 20:00,1.42183,1.42443,1.42175,1.42336,2539,0
2011.04.01 21:00,1.42337,1.42448,1.42189,1.42227,2012,0
2011.04.01 22:00,1.42224,1.42347,1.42197,1.42328,1759,0
Convert it to integer and we get the average (and the SMA, not to mention the weighted LWMA):
(141563 + 141022 + 140655 + 141442 + 142114 + 142155 + 142183 + 142337 + 142224 ) / 9 = 1 275 695 / 9 = 141743,8888888889
That's how easy it is to get a fractional result when you divide it. The longer is the calculation (especially in cumulative formulas of indicator calculations), the bigger is the error. The results of such "accelerated" calculations cannot be trusted.
The scale of the disaster can be assessed by looking at the formulas of the simplest indicators of exponential and linear-weighted moving averages:
Где:
CLOSE (i) — цена закрытия текущего периода;
EMA (i - 1) — значение скользящего среднего предыдущего периода;
P — доля использования значения цен.
Где:
SUM — сумма;
CLOSE(i) — текущая цена закрытия;
SUM (i, N) — сумма весовых коэффициентов;
N — период сглаживания.
The academic must have seen computers in 1982, but for the next 30 years he clearly did not practise or write megatons of code.
So - to kindergarten with this level of programming knowledge.
You can fool yourself as often and as long as you like, but the rest of us can't always be fooled.
The academician must have seen computers in 1982, but for the next 30 years he obviously did not practice and did not write megatons of code.
So - to kindergarten with such level of programming knowledge.
May you discover rational numbers - calculations without loss of precision. :) There are even ready-made libraries for the lazy.
I've already given some links. :)
Kindergarten? Well, where to you with your eternally working optimizer?
You've made a tester which cannot be used in practice - but only on week-old data. :) Who are you kidding?
People will start using it for real and you'll be bombarded with questions - "How do you work with it?"
Oh, come on.) I'm telling you to ban my account. Prival was banned - he wrote the truth - let's put me in the same place. I write the truth, too.
May you discover rational numbers - calculations without loss of precision. :) There are even ready-made libraries - for the lazy.
I've already given you the links. :)
So, the original statement "integer mathematics saves/accelerates in financial calculations" has completely fallen apart.
With libraries, constant recoding int <-> double and decreasing level of confidence in resulting code by two orders of magnitude (no one in his right mind will believe in integer version of complex calculations because of potential overflows and loss of accuracy) you will lose usual real maths on SSE2.
To the kindergarten? Well, where to you with your eternally working optimizer?
You've made a tester which cannot be used in practice - but only on week-old data. :) Who are you kidding?
People will start using it for real and you'll be bombarded with questions - "How do you work with it?"
Oh, come on.) I'm telling you to ban my account. Prival was banned - he wrote the truth - let's put me in the same place. I write the truth, too.
All is well with our optimizer and will be even better - it was made for real practical tasks. It's tested by practice and proved by our great experience in development.
It was absolutely clear from the very beginning that you and Prival are from the same field.
Theorists are visible from afar, especially when they give up their positions with a smile. If one statement doesn't work out, it's easy to replace the next and so on.