What makes an unsteady graph unsteady or why oil is oil? - page 8
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
Now, personally for me, there is a logical justification for the phrase: "At any moment you can enter anywhere, relying on anything, the value of the deposit depends on how you exit after that in the next N, relying on the same inputs." I.e. it allows you to reasonably assert that the transaction exit forms the deposit, with all the ensuing reasoning. And as a matter of fact the entrance through the Fourier and something else, has no more weight, than, say, through the breakthrough of any subcut.
Mathematicians do not look at the process from the point of view of making operations in it, but from the point of view of predicting a particular case without thinking "how can I make money with it?". This is the problem with their logic, i.e. a lot of calculations and knowledge without understanding how to apply them and why there is so much knowledge at all, essentially meaningless. Understand, calculate some suh. mat. shit - it's one thing, and to understand how to apply this suh. mat. shit to make money and whether it is needed - this is another. Practical knowledge and the ability to apply them - everything. And opportunities abound.
Thank you all, I understand what I need.
Математики рассматривают процесс не с позиции совершения операций в нем, а с позиции прогноза частного случая без мылси "а как мне при помощи этого заработать?". В этом то и трабла их логики, т.е. куча всяких расчетов и знаний без понимани как их применить и зачем вообще столько знать, по сути безтолкового. Поймите, обсчитать какую-нибудь выш. мат. хрень - это одно, а понять как эту выш. мат. хрень применить чтобы заработать и нужна ли она - это другое.
+1
:)
Maybe it's time to anathematise the mathematicians so they don't fool people with their useless pseudoscience. :)
Now, personally for me, there is a logical justification for the phrase: "At any moment you can enter anywhere, relying on anything, the value of the deposit depends on how you exit after that in the next N, relying on the same inputs." I.e. it allows you to reasonably assert that the transaction exit forms the deposit, with all the ensuing reasoning. And as a matter of fact, entry through Fourier and something else has no more weight than, say, through breakthrough of any subcut.
Inputs and outputs are equivalent.
Mathematicians do not look at a process from the point of view of making transactions in it, but from the point of view of predicting a particular case without thinking "how can I make money with this?". This is the problem of their logic, i.e. a lot of calculations and knowledge without understanding how to apply them and why there is so much knowledge at all, essentially meaningless. Understand, calculate some suh. mat. shit - it's one thing, and to understand how to apply this suh. mat. shit to make money and whether it is needed - this is another. Practical knowledge and the ability to apply them - everything. And opportunities abound.
Bullshit and provocation. ;)
Математики рассматривают процесс не с позиции совершения операций в нем, а с позиции прогноза частного случая без мылси "а как мне при помощи этого заработать?". В этом то и трабла их логики, т.е. куча всяких расчетов и знаний без понимани как их применить и зачем вообще столько знать, по сути безтолкового.
Yet another methinker reveling in his own ignorance. How many mathematicians do you know to discuss (judge) their logic?
lea, timbo
I am not judging, I am writing what I see, including in this thread. I know enough, give me examples to the contrary and I will publicly apologise.
In a non-stationary process, non-stationarity is stationary.
It is, as in the world, only change is constant.
Шума в ценах нет, всё полезный сигнал.
"Шум" возникает из-за искаженной апроксимации реальности с помощью навязанных извне однобоких наукоподобных стереотипов мышления.
Share... What is considered noise is no different from a useful signal. Is it worth filtering then?
Quantization noise is easily filtered out.
Я не осуждаю, а пишу что вижу, в том числе и в этой ветке. Знаю достаточно, приведите примеры обратного и я публично извенюсь.
Your condemnations and/or apologies are no use to anyone. Explaining anything to a dumbass who "knows enough" to speak for all mathematicians at once is just a waste of time.
Your condemnations and/or apologies are no use to anyone. Explaining anything to a dumbass who "knows enough" to speak for all mathematicians at once is just a waste of time.
Nice man, why are you insulting? You probably have a V.O. too, maybe even more than one ). And psychologists are more likely to confirm that such a reaction is the best confirmation of my words, at least to this individual.
I reiterate what I have seen and what I know from personal experience. I did not insult anyone. I have even more to say that I have written it to see the reactions (+5 lea) and to better understand the issue.
timba
Since you' re insulting me, please don't take it backwards. And give me some decent arguments.