To follow up - page 50
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
This theme is immortal.
Private incarnations have been seen (here on the forum), though not liked.
It sunk in. It surfaced.
I guess the end of the world is nigh - dead women are rising from their graves. Oh, well. We'll have to live with that...
===
I'm not gonna write anything else. It's pointless and useless. Like a Russian revolt.
Were you trying to talk some sense into someone?
Mercy - no, of course not.
What the hell is there to feed?
The one who's stupid?
-
Fire away. After I'm married...
Peter! You've done so much good for the newbies. Let me pat you on the spiky back. I mean, really. You have the ability to explain and offer a good idea.
Create a thread with a practical 'manual'. And the poo-pooing is, like, not... I think it's beneath your dignity.
This theme is immortal.
Private incarnations have been seen (here on the forum), though not liked.
This is the style of the branch.
Ясность хочу внести нектр. Я не претендую и - упаси Боже - не хочу что-то кому-то доказать. Я всего лишь пытаюсь рассказать о своем видении рынка, к которому пришел; про то, что я решил считать важным для создания эффект. ТС, и как я себе представляю рыночные процессы. Суть в моем понимании. Так что любые мнения "не по мне" приветствуются. Я, блин, не чмо, закомплексованное собственной исключительностью. Но, разумеется, мне хочется быть правильно понятым, а вопросы (даже "тупые" - не я сказал!))) полезны и мне, и даже в большей степени мне. Мало ли чего я упустил...
What are you doing here? I'm so damn glad to hear it. Didn't even expect it myself... )))
https://forum.mql4.com/ru/28524/page43
In this thread on the page (link above) the person pointed out an article on psychology, I used to think (and am still spinning something similar) about it.
I am still talking about frequencies and phases, so please do not insult me.
The article suggests to pay attention to the following
Somewhat less obvious is the following theoretical statement: a class cannot be one of those units which are properly classified as its non-members. If we classify all chairs as a class of chairs, we might further observe that tables and lamps are members of the vast class of nonchairs, but we would be committing an error of formal discourse if we considered the class of chairs to be a unit in the class of nonchairs.
Since no class can be a member of itself, the non-stool class clearly cannot be a non-stool. A simple consideration of symmetry can be quite convincing for the non-mathematical reader:
- a) the chair class belongs to the same abstraction order (i.e. a logical type) as the non-stool class;
- b) since the chair class is not a chair, therefore the non-stool class is not a non-stool.
This is actually what I wanted to talk about when I talked about separate analysis of frequencies and only the result of the analysis is combined.
Each class of frequencies in the hierarchy of discretisation and/or price returns is considered as a separate class of "living organisms", where interests of different levels in the hierarchy may coincide with other directions of interests of other levels in the hierarchy, thus interests may accumulate.
Renat (new-rena) this might help you to understand.
https://forum.mql4.com/ru/28524/page43
In this thread on the page (link above) the person pointed out an article on psychology, I used to think (and am still spinning something similar) about it.
I am still talking about frequencies and phases, so please do not insult me.
The article suggests to pay attention to the following
Somewhat less obvious is the following theoretical statement: a class cannot be one of those units which are properly classified as its non-members. If we classify all chairs as a class of chairs, we might further observe that tables and lamps are members of the vast class of nonchairs, but we would be committing an error of formal discourse if we considered the class of chairs to be a unit in the class of nonchairs.
Since no class can be a member of itself, the non-stool class clearly cannot be a non-stool. A simple consideration of symmetry can be quite convincing for the non-mathematical reader:
- a) the chair class belongs to the same abstraction order (i.e. a logical type) as the non-stool class;
- b) since the chair class is not a chair, therefore the non-stool class is not a non-stool.
This is actually what I wanted to talk about when I talked about separate analysis of frequencies and only the result of the analysis is combined.
Each class of frequencies in the hierarchy of discretisation and/or price returns is considered as a separate class of "living organisms", where interests of different levels in the hierarchy may coincide with other directions of interests of other levels in the hierarchy, thus interests may accumulate.
Renat (new-rena) this might help you to understand.
tara:
Эдик - дрессировщик тигров, сейчас меня сменит дядя Петя и толково и обстоятельно разъяснит насчет классов стульев и не классов не стульев. Вас, вроде, интересовал ответ на вопрос,- почему я Вас недолюбливаю? Комментарии нужны?
This is a more serious thread, let's not fluff it up here ok. We will neutralise Petya with poisoned sausages (we have experience))))
Chapaev and Petya were sent on a business trip. On their return,
demands a report.
- We've been drinking," says Vasily Ivanovich.
- No, it won't work," they tell him, "You must write something serious in your report
, like reading literature.
Chapayev writes: "Petya and I bought a book, read it, then handed in
the cover and bought another, read it. Then we went to the library and
Furmanov comes out, all well-read..."
I'll just go away and you talk to me as if I were two.
By the way, from the same article. it is about whether or not my body movements, which seem to be illogical and absurd, and in which nobody wanted to dig, about search of speed-acceleration-acceleration-acceleration-speed, etc., were senseless.
It can be argued a priori that all perceptions and all reactions, all behaviour and all classes of behaviour, all learning and all genetics, all neurophysiology and endocrinology, all organisation and all evolution - generally all this subject matter - should be seen as communicative in nature and therefore relevant to those major generalisations or "laws" that apply to communicative phenomena. Consequently, we are alerted to the possibility of finding in our data those principles of order which fundamental communication theory offers us. We expect Logical Type Theory, Information Theory and others to be our guides.
"Learning" computers, rats and humans
The word "learning" certainly indicates a change of some kind. However, to say what kind of change it is is a delicate question.
Nevertheless, such a broad common denominator as "change" allows us to conclude that our descriptions of "learning" must rely on the same assumptions as variables of the type of logic that has become common in the physical sciences since Newton. The simplest and most familiar form of change is motion, and even if we are working at a very simple physical level, we must structure our descriptions in terms such as "position or zero motion", "constant speed", "acceleration", "rate of change of acceleration", etc. [3].
Change indicates a process. But processes themselves are subject to "change". A process may accelerate, slow down or undergo other types of change which allow us to say that it is now a "different" process.
[3] Newton's equations describing the motion of a "particle" stop at the level of "acceleration". A change in acceleration can only occur when a moving body is deformed, but Newton's "particles" were not made up of "parts" and therefore were not capable (logically) of deformation or other internal changes. Consequently, they were not subject to a change in acceleration.