Market model: constant throughput - page 11

New comment
 
OlegTs:
people!!! are we all here for the love of art, or does anyone want to argue with that?
Everything, not everything you call art, the ability to code kilometres of code? Damn it, will someone explain what this is all about?
 
sanyooooook:
Everything, not everything is what you call art, the ability to code kilometres of code. Man, can someone explain what this is all about?
I think it's an attempt to answer the question, does FX make sense on this side of the barricades? (DC is the other side)
 
gip:

A few nerdy thoughts:

  1. Take BP1 and BP2, each containing Information1 and Information2. If there is a functional relationship between BP1 and BP2, then Information1 == Information2. If BP1 and BP2 are completely independent, the inormation in the two rows Information(1 + 2) == Information1 + Information2. Independent BPs are rather difficult to find. In theory, independent BPs are SBs. In real life Information(1 + 2) << Information1 + Information2.
  2. Coding is a function. And it doesn't matter what kind of function we take - coding or something else. If even the simplest function (having an inverse) on some of our BPs gives different results from applying the same function to all BPs that are SBs. Then our BPs are not SBs. Above, lossless decodable coding was taken as such a function. For this reason, the WRC is not an SB. If the nuance lies in a difference in the understanding of "excellent results", I would be happy to hear the arguments.
 
OlegTs:
I think this is an attempt to answer the question, does FX make sense on this side of the barricades? (DC is the other side)
i.e. an attempt to mathematically prove that profitable trading in Forex is not impossible (or on the contrary possible). Have I got it right?
 
"You stop that," said the adamant Modest Matveyevich" (c) ABS :)
 
sanyooooook:
i.e. trying to prove mathematically that profitable Forex trading is not impossible (or possible). Have I got that right?
Exactly!!!
 
OlegTs:
Exactly!!!
Why doesn't the author say anything, can't he answer? Or does he think it's beneath him to reply? If he had answered at the beginning of the thread, there would have been less flubbing.
 
sanyooooook:

As a future scientist, the author would benefit from

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%83%D1%87%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C

Eh... And the prospects, the prospects...
.
"The average university salary, according to official data, is about 11 thousand rubles, while the average salary in the country is about 18 thousand rubles. According to Oleg Smolin, deputy chairman of the State Duma committee on education, the budgetary salary of a professor is about 17 thousand rubles."
.
http://www.kapital-rus.ru/articles/article/174139

 
hrenfx:
  1. Encoding is a function. And it doesn't matter what nature of function we take, coding this one or something else. If even the simplest function (having an inverse) on some of our BPs gives different results from applying the same function to all BPs that are SBs. Then our BPs are not SBs. Above, lossless decodable coding was taken as such a function. For this reason, the WRC is not an SB. If the nuance lies in the difference in understanding "excellent results", I would be happy to listen to the arguments.


I wrote you, LZ compression is a conditionally complex function of the distribution. Conventionally speaking, you're comparing a BP distribution (I don't know what you took as BP) and a normal distribution. Conventionally speaking, you're comparing the distributions themselves. Well they have different distributions, yeah. But that doesn't mean "Then our BPs are not SBs." They're not SBs with a normal distribution. But for the life of me, I can't draw any conclusions from that. Maybe they're SBs with a non-normal distribution.

--

Look, what are you getting me into? I'm starting to use bird's-eye language, too.

1...456789101112131415161718...28
New comment