Interesting question... - page 4
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
OK. Then I would like to hear your critique of the hypothesis that volatility is some property of a currency pair that should change relatively slowly? I.e. depending on time of day etc. - that's understandable, but if you "go with the trend" - can it be deduced at least on history?
mmm... criticism? i'm not a critic... I'm looking for the truth... in the wine - there is none...
A bearded bohemian, dipped in from every angle. But it's funny.
The expected answer is they're equal. But they're not.
The problem asks what weighs more. That is, which has more weight, all other things being equal. The density of down is less than the density of iron.
Now, the weight
1 -- or zero -- for both iron and down,
2 -- or the weight is positive and the fluff has less due to Archimedean force.
Since (1) is only fulfilled when no forces act on the objects, which is not achievable because even under ideal conditions they would act on each other, that leaves only (2)
So, iron weighs more.
If the question was, which has more mass, then yes, then it's equal.
In my opinion, all other things being equal, if weights are equal, weights are equal and the density does not matter, the density of feather can be brought to the density of iron, but I will not argue.
the question remains why the programmer's fluff weighs more )
The problem asks what weighs more.
Firstly: not heavier, but more weight.
>> the question remains why the programmer's fluff weighs more )
He got into the down's source code and changed the density.
>>. :) That's the point of the parable, from a certain point of view...
Come on, then.
He got into the sources of the fluff and changed the density.
>>)))
Um... criticism? I'm not a critic... I'm looking for the truth... there's no truth in wine, that's for sure.
The picture's very colourful - it's disturbing to the eye. :( But actually, I take it this is again an illustration of the "there is no trend" hypothesis?
Come on, then.
Imho, parables were invented for things that are difficult to put into words. But I'll try.
In general, the point is that meaningless and/or obvious information can have a paradoxical (not obvious) effect on the outcome - but it's not certain that the mechanism of influence will be uncovered.
Imho, parables were invented for things that are difficult to put into words. But I'll give it a try.
Basically, the point is that meaningless and/or obvious information can have a paradoxical (not obvious) effect on the outcome - but it's not certain that the mechanism of influence will be uncovered.
Man, I'd rather go fishing