Intuition testing - 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
Well back to the topic :
I haven't done a lot of tests yet, and have only made two cuts of 44% and 57% that interestingly the strategy was to repeat the past value and no intuition.
I think with appropriate statistics there will be a normal distribution.
Exactly right, Urain, if you press only one button all the time, it will come out ~50%. I've tested it (disable pause for that, it'll be faster). Did 10 runs.
The thing is that I was not constantly pressing one and the same and followed the market pressed the one that was last time,
(a time lag of one position, so to speak).
I'm not sure where to turn off the pause.
Given that it's a gcj, I don't think it has much to do with intuition, and I don't think it can be trained that way
It'll work. Believe me. The point is that until the future is predetermined, there is an infinite number of possible alternative states (Schrodinger's cat). Only the observer determines (fixes) this or that scenario. The power of intuition allows a volitional impulse to change the universe on a local scale :). Often people simply do not remember the voice of intuition. It is present in them, but they do not hear it for some reason. There were experiments in which people :) rejected by force of will a uranium random number generator. But those were pros, of course. I can post the documentary evidence.The thing is, I didn't always click on one and the same one, but I followed the market and clicked the one I clicked last time,
(so to speak, time lag on one position.)
Same thing. You're like a machine. The most important thing about intuition is the element of chaos.
It will work. Believe me. The point is that until the future is predetermined, there is an infinite number of possible alternative states (Schrödinger's cat). Only the observer determines (fixes) this or that scenario. The power of intuition allows a volitional impulse to change the universe on a local scale :). Often people simply do not remember the voice of intuition. It is present in them, but they do not hear it for some reason. There were experiments in which people :) rejected by force of will a uranium random number generator. But those were pros, of course. I can lay out a documentary evidence.Well, if you learn to change the continuum locally and influence the random number generator on your computer, what will it give you?
It'll work. Believe me. The point is that as long as the future is not predetermined, there is an infinite number of possible alternative states (Schrodinger's cat). Only the observer determines (fixes) this or that scenario. The power of intuition allows a volitional impulse to change the universe on a local scale :). Often people simply do not remember the voice of intuition. It is present in them, but they do not hear it for some reason. There were experiments in which people :) rejected by force of will a uranium random number generator. But those were pros, of course. I can post the documentary evidence.>> no, that's all right, I'll stick to what I've got.
Take away the Htch, think of a very simple but not obvious correlation, and you can torture your intuition.
No, don't, I'll stick to my point.
Take away the gcj, come up with a very simple but not obvious correlation, and you can torture your intuition
Here we have it, you will try to reveal implicit dependence with help of intuition and this is a direct training of neural network (so I agree), but the subject should not know this dependence, I think parameters of dependence can be created by gcj and not to change it until intuition learns to recognize it.
No, don't, I'll stick to my point.
Take away gcj, think up a very simple but not obvious dependence and you can torment your intuition.
Theoretically, if you have doubts about the GCS, you could build a physical intuition developer. It consists of a pot of peas. One takes out one pea and without looking puts it into a yellow or black box. The process is repeated 50 times. You can't do it with cards because you can remember what was in the beginning and calculate the end.
ZS. Write the law in your personal and I will implement it in the program as an alternative. I.e. anything is possible. For example you can use the main mixing algorithm from RC4, but it's not worth it yet. Guessing the generator is as difficult as the autoregression.