Pure maths, physics, logic (braingames.ru): non-trade-related brain games - page 171

New comment
 

Have you started preparing for 1st grade?

;)

 
Mathemat:

36 workpieces = 36 parts + swarf for 6 workpieces.

6 workpieces = 6 parts + swarf for 1 workpiece.

1 workpiece = 1 workpiece.

36+6+1 = 43 parts in total.

Is it possible to do more or what?

I think it's 42, in the penultimate line 36 parts + 6 parts + 1 chip = 42 parts and 1 chip
 
Mathemat:

36 workpieces = 36 parts + swarf for 6 workpieces.

6 workpieces = 6 parts + swarf for 1 workpiece.

1 workpiece = 1 workpiece.

36+6+1 = 43 parts in total.

Is it possible to do more or what?

That's right. The catch is the shavings from the six secondary parts from which the forty-third is made. 1/6 of the 'tertiary' chip is in the dry.
 
Mathemat:

36 workpieces = 36 parts + swarf for 6 workpieces.

6 workpieces = 6 parts + swarf for 1 workpiece.

1 workpiece = 1 workpiece.

36+6+1 = 43 parts in total.

Is it possible to do more or what?

It seems to be correct - a task for fifth grade, for mental calculation and attention.
 
sergeev:

a boy has 100 bottles of lemonade.

At the shop he can then exchange 10 empty bottles for 1 full bottle.

How many bottles of lemonade will he end up drinking?

Similar problem:

111.

However, he can drink 10 at most - after that he won't have any more (if the bottles are half-liter).

[Deleted]  

My question probably answers the question, so I'm posting it here. :)

The standard MT5 includes a source code for the ATR indicator. In order to focus the question, I show only one concluding calculation line of its code:

ExtATRBuffer[i]=ExtATRBuffer[i-1]+(ExtTRBuffer[i]-ExtTRBuffer[i-ExtPeriodATR])/ExtPeriodATR;

This line is responsible for the calculation of the arithmetic mean of the difference between extrema of bars over ExtPeriodATR-periods.

This mathematical construction is not clear to me therefore I replaced it with what I believe to be a correct one:

double sum = 0.0;
for (int j = i - ExtPeriodATR + 1; j <= i; j++) sum += ExtTRBuffer[j];
ExtATRBuffer[i] = sum / ExtPeriodATR;

Subsequent testing showed that the actual calculated values of indicators coincide.

Apparently, here I lack the mathematical knowledge to understand why these terms behave equivalently. Can you please explain why?

After all, if you take the following numerical series: [1, 8, 3, 2, 1], the result of the two formulas (arithmetic mean) will be different: in the first case = (2 + (1-1)/5) = 2, in the second case = (1 + 8 + 3 + 2 + 1)/5 = 3.

 
voix_kas:

I don't understand this mathematical construction, so I replaced it with what I think is the correct one:

Subsequent testing has shown that the actual calculated values of the indicators are the same.

Apparently, here I lack the mathematical knowledge to understand why these terms behave equivalently. Can you please explain why?

I don't know, I don't have enough data.

The easiest thing to do is to prime the indicator values yourself with different input data.

And, generally speaking, the task clearly relates to trading.

 
voix_kas:

Apparently I lack the mathematical knowledge here to understand why these terms behave equivalently. Can you please explain why?


The sum is calculated on the fly. The obsolete value (which has gone beyond the averaging period) is removed and the newly arrived value is added. "Sliding amount".

All of our muvings are calculated this way. However, Rashid has somehow dug out a faster algorithm for calculating moving average. We didn't use it because we cannot strictly prove the adequacy - the values seem to be the same, but we don't know how this algorithm may behave in the future

 
stringo:

The sum is calculated on the fly. The obsolete value (which has gone beyond the averaging period) is removed and the newly arrived value is added. "Sliding amount".

All of our muvings are calculated this way. However, Rashid has somehow dug out a faster algorithm for calculating moving average. We didn't use it because we cannot strictly prove the adequacy - the values seem to be the same, but we don't know how this algorithm may behave in the future

Can we take a look at the algorithm Rashid found?
[Deleted]  
Mathemat:

I don't know, not enough data.

The easiest thing to do is to do a rewrite of the indicator values with different input data.

And, generally speaking, the task is clearly related to trading.

Do you think my question should be moved to a separate/other topic?

1...164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178...229
New comment