Explain about Fibonacci... - page 7
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
Ward seven is reading in chorus. Run along. =)
>> very funny.
To continue the dialogue about fishing.
I do not at all take it upon myself to claim that Leonardo restricted himself to this method - that would be illiterate on my part. But at the same time, let's turn to classical drawing techniques (have you ever tried drawing? You know, it's very relaxing and you start to look at some things differently, although I am not a very good draftsman). And you can go back in time.
"Leonardo da Vinci also paid a lot of attention to the study of the golden divide. He made sections of a stereometric body formed by regular pentagons, and each time he obtained rectangles with the ratios of the sides in the golden division. He therefore gave this division the name golden section."
"Albrecht Dürer developed in detail the theory of the proportions of the human body. Dürer gave an important place in his system of proportions to the golden ratio. A person's height is divided in golden ratio by the waist line, as well as a line drawn through the tips of the middle fingers of the lowered hands, the lower part of the face by the mouth, etc. Dürer's proportional circular is well-known."
"The great 16th century astronomer Johannes Kepler called the golden ratio one of the treasures of geometry. He was the first to draw attention to the importance of the golden ratio for botany (plant growth and structure). Kepler called the golden ratio a continuation of itself 'It is so constructed,' he wrote, 'that the two lowest terms of this infinite proportion as a whole give a third term, and any two last terms, if added together, give the next term, and the same proportion is maintained to infinity.'
"In 1855, the German researcher of the golden ratio, Professor Zeising , published his work Aesthetic Investigations. He absolutised the golden ratio proportion, declaring it universal for all phenomena of nature and art. Zeising had numerous followers, but there were also opponents who declared his doctrine of proportions 'mathematical aesthetics'."
"Zeising did a colossal job. He measured about two thousand human bodies and came to the conclusion that the golden ratio expresses an average statistical law. The division of the body by the point of the navel is the most important indicator of the golden ratio. The proportions of the male body fluctuate within the average ratio of 13 : 8 = 1.625 and are somewhat closer to the golden ratio than the proportions of the female body, for which the average ratio is expressed in the ratio 8 : 5 = 1.6. At the newborn the proportion is 1 : 1, by the age of 13 it is equal to 1.6, and by the age of 21 it is equal to the male proportion. The Golden Ratio proportions are also evident in relation to other parts of the body - shoulder length, forearm and hand, hand and fingers, etc.
Zeising tested the validity of his theory on Greek statues. He worked out the proportions of Apollo of Belvedere in the most detailed way. Greek vases, architectural structures of different eras, plants, animals, birds' eggs, musical tones and poetic sizes were subjected to study. Zeising defined the golden ratio, showed how it is expressed in line segments and in numbers. When the numbers expressing the lengths of the segments were obtained, Zeising saw that they constitute the Fibonacci series, which can be continued to infinity in one direction and the other."
Maybe this as some kind of statistic, albeit not in terms of markets, will do?
I think questions about the harmony and naturalness of the Fibonacci ratio and the existence of the cherished numbers 1.618 and 0.618 are temporarily removed.
Now let's get back to the markets. Recall Ralph Elliott, who wrote: "The law of nature includes in its consideration the most important element - rhythmicity. The law of nature is not a system, not a method of playing the market, but a phenomenon, apparently, characteristic of the course of any human activity. All, or almost all of us know that with his possibly unworkable system based on cycles and Fibonacci ratio he managed to make more than one series of very successful analytical calculations, which made him a successful and famous stockbroker.
"There are three distinctive features inherent in all human activity: form, time and relation, all of which obey the Fibonacci summation sequence." Of course this cannot be considered an axiom, but the proof, I think, is the subject of our conversation.
Of course, it is absolutely right that formalization is important. And for a perfectly formalized algorithm, the situation
will be fundamentally inaccurate, although for a human (okay, an adept of the Golden Ratio theory) there are no questions.
The situation looks much clearer:
Although I'm sure many people will find a catch here as well - if only they wanted to.
As for statistics in terms of markets, there are maps and flags at everyone's fingertips - if one is willing, one can want and try to devise an asbestos stochastic experiment with a dash of Fibonacci, and test everything.
Sorry about the necropost.
Rereading the branches on fibo. Interesting post.
Used to be sceptical of fibo levels. Indeed, why should the price bounce from these levels and not others?
And only, very recently, has an understanding (subjective) come to mind.
It should not, and the levels may be approximately different. But the main question - what problem are we solving? What are we looking for?
If we have identified the movement and we need to catch it, but not a reversal. If it (objectively) will be a correction movement, it will most probably be smaller (in proportions) than this one. And here, I think the levels will float. But, on the whole, the picture will not change.
Sorry about the necropost.
Rereading the branches on fibo. Interesting post.
Used to be sceptical of fibo levels. Indeed, why should the price bounce from these levels and not others?
And only, very recently, has an understanding (subjective) come to mind.
It should not, and the levels may be approximately different. But the main question - what problem are we solving? What are we looking for?
If we have identified the movement and we need to catch it, but not a reversal. If it (objectively) will be a correction movement, it will most probably be smaller (in proportions) than this one. And here, I think the levels will float. But, on the whole, the picture will not change.
The crowd sells/buys from the levels, that's how they work, not the other way around, haven't you figured it out yet, sv.?
Is it fair to divide the applicability of the Fibo property (levels) into the following categories (subjective understanding)?
1) All market participants who siphobo in their trading place their orders at these levels. The construction may differ, as everyone has a different view of the beginning of a trend. But on the whole, when we go through the TF, we can see the accumulation of orders at these approximate levels. And if the amount of such participants is large, the price bounces and works out these levels.
So people believe in the fib and it works.
2) What is the essence of fibo levels? As far as I understand it, any selected price range is broken down into proportions - 23%, 50%, 61% of the distance travelled.
The nature of the market is wave-like. If prices rise, there will be those who want to sell at the local highs and consequently the price will fall.
Here, is there a "fundamental" property of this decrease (correction) to work out (even roughly and approximately) these levels? After all, if the correction is larger than the identifiable movement, it is reasonable to assume that it is a reversal. Although anything is possible.
The best level is 40%.
That's why I decided to use all levels. After all, if the initial impulse movement is large, it can presumably only work out the approximate 23% level and continue to rise. It is impossible to be sure how deep the correction will be.
That is, people believe in the fibo and it works.
What is there to believe? The market needs to bounce at some levels. So they took Fibo as a "benchmark".
Other levels could have appeared with equal probability. Historically, the pioneers liked the idea of harmonicity of fibos.
What is there to believe? The market needs to bounce at some levels. So they took Fibo as a "benchmark".
Other levels could have appeared with equal probability. Historically, the pioneers liked the idea of harmonicity of fibos.
I don't argue with that, I'm interested in proper methods of determining the correction. And Fibo seems to have a fundamental basis for its applicability to such a problem. An objective property, so to speak.
There is a range, there are possible correction levels. If the decrease is larger than the range - it is a reversal. Roughly.
...
1) All market participants who use Fibo in their trading place their orders at these levels. The construction may be different, as everyone has a different vision of the beginning of a trend. But on the whole, when we go through the TF, we can see the accumulation of orders at these approximate levels. And if the amount of such participants is large, the price bounces and works out these levels.
That is, people believe in the fib and it works.