Pure maths, physics, logic (braingames.ru): non-trade-related brain games - page 210
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
@Mathemat : It would be good to apply matte induction to this case somehow. I think // Probably linear algebra will have to be unpacked after all. Although it would be better to do without... :)
No, there's no need to tug on linear algebra's tail, it's simple geometry. Not even analytical, but classical.
Since this is "Pure maths, physics, logic and brain games in general" ;) I propose a problem worthy of attention:
Everybody knows Newton's laws. Suppose that the motion chart of some (any) financial instrument (the price) is a trajectory of a body of mass m=1.
Determine the force acting on the body.
That's a bit far-fetched, brother - if you mean EURUSD or something similar. I've been dealing with this subject a long time ago, about 18 years ago (when I've never heard of forex, but I've heard about stocks by ear and started thinking about them).
It turns out to be very serious: when describing the motion of a stock, a stochastic nonlinear equation comes out, and with all sorts of rabbits out of the hat, i.e. surprises. But in a particular case it is possible to reduce the equation to linear and consider an equation of the second degree (second order link) with all the charms and invariants of classical mechanics. Curious, but I gave up on this topic at the time, it was not up to it.
Now the main subtlety: the mass of this "body" (stock/forex pair) is not constant in principle, so there is a problem with definition of force. In general, to make up a quasi-mechanical equation of motion of a share/forex pair it is necessary to apply elements of systems theory.
In general, this thread is not about that, it is pure mathematics.
Yeah, it's kind of correct. Thanks, now I see that the algorhythm is generally correct.
Now looking for an easier justification.
Here are some more cockroaches for the brood:
If you start to rotate the upper base of the trapezoid, the oscillator shows interesting properties:
Here's a generator of only odd harmonics (obtained by adjusting the angle, I haven't yet grasped or digitized the exact patterns).
And here is another interesting sample for more understanding:
The harmonics here are fractional, namely "half".
How's that? ;)
That, brother, is a big exaggeration - if you mean EURUSD or something like that in your mind. I have been dealing with this topic for a very long time, about 18 years ago for the first time (when I had not heard of forex, but I had heard about stocks by ear and started to think about them).
It turns out very seriously: when describing the motion of an action, a stochastic nonlinear equation comes out, and with all sorts of rabbits out of the hat, i.e. surprises. But in a particular case it is possible to reduce the equation to linear and consider an equation of the second degree (second order link) with all the charms and invariants of classical mechanics. Curious, but I abandoned this topic at the time, it was not up to it.
Now the main subtlety: the mass of this "body" (stock/forex pair) is not constant in principle, so there is a problem with definition of force. In general, to make up a quasi-mechanical equation of motion of a share/forex pair, one should apply elements of systems theory.
In general, this thread is not about that, it is pure mathematics.
I've been picking up on this issue for a very long time, and from different angles. And it'sworth it!!!
You've abandoned the topic then, but you haven't completely thrown it out of your mind ;) Take your mind off non-linearities, stochasticity, mass impermanence and other "horrors". Make a framework on which to lean when taking the "horrors" into account.
zy.
"That's not what this thread is about, it's pure mathematics."
From the title, it includes physics, logic and problems for the brain.
I'll look for statements of famous mathematicians about so-called "pure mathematics". :))))
Honestly, I googled it. I never would have guessed it myself.
Did Google tell you that F=1 ? That's bullshit. Google fooled you ;))
Well, fuck it... Don't bother...
.
The challenge:
how to use a smartphone's accelerometer and/or gyroscope sensors to find out the weight of that smartphone .
(no other accurate measuring devices such as ruler or stopwatch)
I've been getting to this point for a very long time, and from different angles. And it's worth it!!!
You've abandoned the subject then, but you haven't completely thrown it out of your mind ;) Get away from non-linearities, stochasticity, mass impermanence and other "horrors". Make a framework on which to lean when taking the "horrors" into account.
Yes,you should. But to turn this "metatheory" into a tool that can ride forex, you're going to have to put even more strain on your brain.
About "get rid of horrors": if these horrors are absent, the model will become too primitive and lose any chance of working.
Oh don't, I've already read about the absurdity of adding prime numbers. These opinions didn't seem convincing to me.
You may argue about impracticality of pure mathematics as much as you wish, but... Take the famous theorem of Fermat: it seems to be of no practical use, but it alone developed mathematics in a very decent way.
.
A challenge:
how to know the weight of a smartphone using accelerometer and/or gyroscope sensors .
(no other accurate measuring devices like ruler or stopwatch)
Whoa, wow!
By the way, the gyro effect is very clearly seen when cloning the operating system (Paragon) and disconnecting the HDD from the SATA cables after cloning is completed in hot mode.
Did Google tell you that F=1 ? That's bullshit. Google fooled you ;))
Well, fuck it... Don't bother...
Yes,you should. But to turn this "metatheory" into a tool that can ride forex would require even more brainpower.
About "distract from the horrors": if these horrors are absent, the model will become too primitive and lose any chance of being workable.
As you know, if it's hard to do something, it's easier to find a reason not to do it... ;))
Oh don't, I have already read about absurdity of addition of prime numbers. I did not find these opinions convincing.
You can argue forever about the impracticality of pure mathematics, but... Take the famous theorem of Fermat: it seems to be of no practical use, but it alone has developed mathematics in a very decent way.
No, on the contrary, I am talking about the absurdity of the phrase 'pure mathematics', because mathematics is always practical, while it is the definition of 'pure' that looks silly, i.e. detached from the realities of our world. It is this nonsense that many famous mathematicians point out.
But it is not possible to find the first derivative as a difference between adjacent values divided by time (the function is discrete). Find it for two neighboring points and then find the second derivative as the difference of the first divided by time. The second derivative is the acceleration
Quite right. The derivatives can be handled very simply. I would only add that the resulting series must be passed through filters. This is a technique of working with discrete data. This technique is well known and does not cause any objections. (another thing is that this technique has its own subtleties).
But the velocity v and acceleration w of the body, obtained in this way, are necessary prerequisites, but they are not yet the force F acting on the body. The question is about theforceF.
Simplify things a bit by adding a stopwatch
how to find out the weight of a smartphone using its sensors - accelerometer, gyroscope, stopwatch (choose one).
(There are no external measuring devices like a ruler).