Algorithm Optimisation Championship. - page 29
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
Firstly, I mean the fact that he started his work by developing theory, and then confirmed it in practice (allegedly).
Firstly, I am referring to the fact that he started his work by developing theory, and then confirmed it in practice (allegedly).
As for whether or not I understand TO, you can rest assured - at my level, I do.
The Championship is a great opportunity to test your algorithms under tough competitive conditions, which are tougher and more demanding than those encountered in everyday life.
Why not complement the existing optimizer with TesterStatistics with additional statistics? For example, the time duration of a tested interval, average position holding time, percentage of time of open positions.Why not change the data type of the average number of profitable (losing) trades in succession from int to double?
И...? What is that fact supposed to tell us? I really don't understand what you're trying to say?
I am not a scientist, but my point is that it is walking on thin ice when first there is theorising and then looking for a phenomenon to validate theoretical constructions. My view is this. Just a stone falling to the ground and this being reflected in Newton's laws is one thing. And the effect of mass on space-time and other effects, sorry, no one has seen it. It was invented on paper first.
That's all I wanted to say.
And why allegedly? Is it not unequivocally proven that the speed of light is always the same?
This is an undisputed fact. Other aspects are questioned there (not by me personally). The accuracy of the ray deflection experiment, due to optical defects, was not high. And all other modern confirmation of the theory borders on noise - a very low threshold of accuracy. And there are articles by the inventor of GPS where he writes that there is no need to correct for the speed of light, it just creates distortions.
Goodbye.
This is an undisputed fact. Other aspects are questioned there (not by me personally). The accuracy of the ray deflection experiment, due to optical defects, was not high. And all other modern confirmation of the theory borders on noise - a very low threshold of accuracy. And there are articles by the inventor of GPS where he writes that there is no need to correct for the speed of light, it just creates distortions.
Goodbye.
Righty-o. Just like with Darwin, development in one thread, and because of some monkey "disproving" all of Darwin.
I am not a scientist, but my point is that it is walking on thin ice when first there is theorising and then looking for a phenomenon to validate theoretical constructions. My view is this. Just a stone falling to the ground and this being reflected in Newton's laws is one thing. And the effect of mass on space-time and other effects, sorry, no one has seen it. It was invented on paper first.
That's all I wanted to say.
Why do you stubbornly try to call only what you can feel and touch science? Have you ever considered that the essence of an object can differ significantly from its subjective perception by an observer?
By the way, Newton postulated his laws based on mathematical calculations of the trajectories of celestial bodies, not on a falling stone or the famous apple. This is a Newtonian myth altogether.
Mmm, well, I haven't dealt with that. Darwin's theory has its strengths. But it doesn't account for the underlying processes at the molecular level.
Yes, yes trouble, the number of grey hairs in old man Hottabych's beard doesn't count in Darwin's theory either.