Using artificial intelligence at MTS - page 27
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
Question from a dummy: How do I find the post number? My browser doesn't display it.
From a dummy? Yeah, I don't know how to link to a specific post either.
Didn't know how. Read this page again - now I can give a link to a specific post, now I'm not a dummy. :)
I'll have to practise some more, though...
From a dummy? Yikes, I don't know how to link to a particular post either.
Didn't know how. Read this page again - now I can give a link to a specific post, now I'm not a dummy. :)
I'll have to practise some more, though...
What's the reviewer?
What's your browser ?
Firefox 3.6.8
Shit, tried to get a link to the post, didn't work. It's a bit early for me to get out of the dummies. :)
Firefox 3.6.8
Shit, tried to get a link to the post, didn't work. It's a bit early for me to get out of dummies. :)
MQ has since changed the format and that way the anchor is no longer reachable.
If you really, really need it, you can do the following
1. Copy a few words from the post you're looking for into the buffer.
2. Order the browser to view the source code of the page
3. Order a search with this code copied to the buffer fragment.
4. The closest line at the top like <a name="380872"> contains the anchor you're looking for.
Does anyone know a shorter way?
The MQ has since changed the format and that way the anchor is no longer retrievable.
If you really, really need it, you can do the following
1. Copy a few words from the post you are looking for into the buffer.
2. Order the browser to view the source code of the page
3. Order a search with this code copied to the buffer fragment.
4. The closest line at the top is <a name="380872"> which contains the anchor you're looking for.
Does anyone know a shorter way?
Yeah. As Matroskin the Cat would say:
- We have the means. What's missing is artificial intelligence.
Does anyone know a shorter way?
Anchor the posts in the native search on the website. But the method is unreliable.
I've been thinking about this mental experiment:
Хотя сказано в шутку, идея достойна рассмотрения. Нейросеть таракана будет посложнее той которую предлагает решетов. Если посадить таракана перед экраном с контактами на лапах, позволяющих ему давать команды бай/сел и при прибыльных командах давать ему сахар, а при убыточных - электрический шок, то скоро нейросеть таракана начнёт распознавать паттерны ведущие к прибыльным сделкам (то есть сахару). Так как таракан это очень живущая тварь, способная приспособиться практически к любым условиям существования, то его нейросеть очень даже подходит для торговли на форексе. Если тараканов в квартире нет, то можно с таким же успехом использовать мышей или крыс или даже соседа-алкоголика, только в случае успешных сделок ему не сахар нужно давать а что-то покрепче.
It is assumed, apparently, that the cockroach not only sees what is written on the screen, but also understands what is written, and makes meaningful decisions based on what it sees, leading it to its goals (getting sugar). That is, the cockroach must somehow eventually understand what it is being electrocuted for, and then learn to trade forex better than a human, only if given a good incentive. No kidding, at one time Norbekov traded such devices, only for humans. It's called Tintuit. You press the wrong button and you get an electric shock. In theory, the device was supposed to help you develop intuition.
But back to the cockroach. I propose an experiment. What if we put an opaque screen between the cockroach and the monitor? Or turn off the monitor altogether, without turning off the computer? Would the trading result change? I think not: there is no connection between the cockroach and forex, except, perhaps, an accidental one. Yes, it is connected to the terminal by wires, it seems to make some decisions, but what are these "decisions" based on? On nothing - they are random, and therefore have nothing to do with the image on the monitor => the monitor can also be turned off.
Moreover. The cockroach must not only choose the right button, but also choose the moment when to press it. That is, it must somehow miraculously determine the moment when it enters the market. But what can make a cockroach choose between buttons? I think its best strategy is not to touch the buttons at all. You could get an electric shock! On the other hand, when it gets hungry, on the contrary, it has to press the buttons very actively: maybe one time it will guess the right button and get sugar, satisfying its hunger for some time. But it is clear that the moment of choice is related to the state of the cockroach's stomach, not to the movement in the market.
Of course, this mental experiment with the cockroach is more like a joke, like Schrodinger's cat in a box. However, it does suggest some serious thoughts.
Suppose that instead of a cockroach neural network, a neural network algorithm is used, which is written into an advisor and which makes decisions. It analyses input data and under the influence of "punishment"/"reward" it generates coefficients of the plane dividing the space into two parts. But here is a random walk to the input of the algorithm - the algorithm will also "analyse" some "patterns" (which are not there) and think it is making some "decisions". The result, of course, will be zero, a million words will be said that neural networks are obsolete, that we should use more modern algorithms, or more complex, multi-level networks, etc., etc. But the point is that there must be some background to the application of this or that algorithm. Practice alone (testing on history) is not enough. And what preconditions for using linear neural networks were there? - None at all! We just know such a mathematical object - let's apply it! Because we CAN do it. It's like a mad scalpel, which cuts everything, even when the surgeon doesn't need it, because it's the only thing he knows how to do.
It should be noted that experiments like the cockroach experiment have indeed been conducted on animals. Here, for example (Asya Kazantseva "Pseudoscience"). Very hungry pigeons were given a grain every 30 seconds, and the pigeons tried to determine what their actions in the past led to this result in the future. One pigeon thought it was all about flapping its wings - it kept flapping them and getting grain, so it became increasingly convinced that its actions were correct - a kind of positive feedback system. The other pressed a button with the same result.
The point here is that animal (and human) thinking works intuitively to confirm the result. All sorts of folk omens, such as a black cat crossing the road, are connected to this. It would seem that just a few uncomplicated actions - simply taking a different road - could save you a lot of trouble in the future. Although, it's not at all clear what the connection between an encountered cat and trouble might be. You can read more about the psychological mechanism for fixing such behaviour in the article "Pascal's wager as a log paradox". By the way, it was the philosopher Hume who first drew attention to "after is not after". And afterwards, many philosophers (including Newton and Popper) believed that a scientist should work to disprove a scientific theory, not to confirm it.
Now let's remember how technical analysis "works". In fact, many thechanalysts compare technical analysis to folk omens. One day we notice that after a certain figure the trend went up. From this we conclude that it will always be so. On the one hand, science has no other method, except the inductive one (we apply the special case to all cases). On the other hand, a lot of thechanalysts, in my opinion, simply don't have a mastery of logic.
Let's assume for example (although it is not true) that any trend always unfolds in a "head-shoulders" pattern. Hence, in the analysis, it is concluded that an encounter with a figure of "head and shoulders" always precedes the trend reversal. The logic is as follows: every goose has two legs. You have two legs - consequently, you are a goose. Of course, if you give out two-legged animals, among which 50% of the time there will be a goose, then 50% of the time it will be a goose. But clearly this has nothing to do with his analytical skills.
It's funny, Alexander Elder called the "false" figure "head-shoulders", which is no different from the "true" figure "head-shoulders", but after which the trend reversal doesn't occur, the name "Baskerville dog". But he should have called it "I-don't-do-with-logic".