The law of conservation of the money supply is not a law. - page 8
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
Hertz (vibrations per second) does not apply to the quotation spectrum, it is more correct to estimate wavelengths in bars
but decibels would be interesting to hear at least an order of magnitude, if not top secret.
This is an example. The question was about the depth of the spectrum. What difference does it make what you measure the spectrum in? Frequency need not be measured in hertz and period in bars. There are other quantities.
Why do I or you need to know the ratio of the allocated harmonic to the total signal, if it is a pure harmonic? What matters is the set of these harmonics with all their properties (period, amplitude, phase).
This is an example. The question was about the depth of the spectrum. What difference does it make what you measure the spectrum in? You don't have to measure frequency in hertz and period in bars. There are other quantities.
Why do I or you need to know the ratio of the extracted harmonic to the total signal, if it is a pure harmonic? What matters is the set of these harmonics with all their properties (period, amplitude, phase).
Are you talking about the Fourier transform?
P.S. It's a pity we have strayed from the subject again. Does anyone have educated and substantiated thoughts on the conservation of money supply?
And where the author of this thread disappeared to?
What's there to be sorry for?
You're just a hackneyed whack job... you're looking for currency balances, you're looking for a rubbish topic, you're thinking of it as valuable research...
...most of the forum is delusional...
Applying the highest selectivity filter in the physical sense ...
That selectivity indicated in the measurement is not physical ...
Now Privalov will come and kick the humanists' ears in...)
decibels of attenuation or quality factor of the filter to catch "pure" harmonics I never heard ((
Are you talking about the Fourier transform?
I've already written about it somewhere. I use Fourier decomposition in my method out of habit. You can use any other decomposition.
What's there to be sorry for?
You're just a hackneyed whack job... you're looking for currency balances, you're looking for a rubbish topic that you think is valuable research...
Most of this forum is just delusional...
Privalov's gonna come along and kick some humanitarians' ears in.)
>> decibels of damping or quality factor of the filter to catch "pure" harmonics I never heard ((
There will be no specific answers. The reasons are given above.
Two people from this forum, judging by their posts, have come close to solving the problem of bringing non-stationarity to quasi-stationarity. But then they disappeared...
There will be no specific answers. The reasons are given above.
Two from this forum, judging by posts, came close to the solution of the problem of reduction of nonstationarity to quasi-stationarity. But disappeared somewhere...
If you don't mind telling me the names of these two.
Out of curiosity I'll look at their posts
The depth of the spectrum, for example, from 50 Hz to 20,000 Hz. That should make sense.
This was usually referred to as the width of the spectrum.
This is usually referred to as the width of the spectrum.
It's called the frequency range, which is also characterized by the unevenness of the frequency response.
but none of this has anything to do with quotes.
There will be no specific answers. The reasons are given above.
>> someone's messing with someone's head.)
Two people from this forum, judging by their posts, came close to solving the problem of reducing non-stationarity to quasi-stationarity. But they disappeared somewhere...
>> probably gone to the seventh dimension.)
this is called the frequency range, which is also characterized by the unevenness of the frequency response
but none of this has anything to do with quotes.
Someone's messing with someone's head.)
>> they must have gone to the seventh dimension.)
Yes! I am!
My posts give me hope. There is a solution! Look for it.
It took me three years to do it. Why should I post it here?
This was usually referred to as the width of the spectrum.
In one-dimensional space, it looks like width or length. Although, width is already from two-dimensional.
When you look at a three-dimensional picture, you see it as depth.
Are you a fan of clear terminology?
What do you call the fourth, fifth and sixth dimensions?