Wave analysis - page 25
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
1. I am writing to you that Fourier is not applicable, due to the non-stationarity of the series - this should be emphasised.
2. Well, let's look at the years, what were the pre-crisis crises there. The current alleged crisis, how to count? Crisis of 2008 or 2009, or 2010? and there are people who argue that everything began in 2007. So what did we have in 1990-1993? Where did the 1998 crisis go? It was not only in Russia. What to make of it?
Open the Dow Jones DJI chart and you can see what happened every 17 years.
I don't apply Fourier, I just saw a similar explanation of waves on the adventurist website 2 years ago.
Personally saw a second way of making up a regression of a currency from fundamentals, but on monthly charts. On weekly charts the calculation was approximated.
How do you prove that you "personally" and that you "saw"?
Aha! Neely said so be it!
He has a very harsh description. For 3 years I was sceptical, but after writing (while writing) the indicator I understood why.
A colleague at work was doing it.
And I personally saw what you personally did not see. So what if a work colleague did?
He has a very harsh description. For 3 years I was sceptical, but after writing (while writing) the indicator I understood why this was the case.
Have you ever tried to think with your own head? I recommend you to do it, it's very interesting.
Open a chart of the Dow Jones DJI index and you can see what has happened every 17 years.
Open the graph.
Eeeeee? Where's the 17-year cycle?
sak120 wrote >>
I don't apply Fourier either, just saw a similar explanation of waves on the adventurist website 2 years ago.
Personally saw a second way of making a regression of currency rates from fundamentals, but on monthly charts. On weekly charts the calculation was approximated.
Yeah, Fourier is not applicable, but the explanation based on it is fine. Isn't there some logical absurdity here?
About the second way, it's not at all clear.
I'll take it from here...
>> I'll take it from here.
Yeah, yeah. They can do without us.
Or here, the sandpaper.
Where's all the cyclic brilliance here?
By the way, I notice that the peaks on the sandpaper and the john don't seem to match up. Aren't there any suspicious things here as well?
No such option, I don't have the package with me. Would have done so:
You didn't answer my... uh... query:
Name one statistically significant sinusoid in weeks. And show me by what criteria you were able to figure out that it was statistically significant. I mean, how do you understand that clever phrase.
Or are you just now coming up with it all? If you say yes, I will not hate or despise you because of it.
P.S. I saw that you do not apply Fourier, referring to the site of some adventurer. OK, so what's the point of all this sci-fi then?