That's interesting - page 13

New comment
 
Svinozavr:

Hello, Seryozh. I didn't immediately realise you were you. You changed your nickname. Then, like, everything is clear.)) Then... I decided to take a break. I wonder... what they're going to agree on.

Bottom line.

I haven't been a scientist for six years, but I stick to methodology. In particular, the razor device of a medieval British monk: Don't create unnecessary entities unless absolutely necessary.

Scattered results? Within this methodology? Right, right... Doesn't this methodology involve washing your hands before an experiment, say? Or taking induced radioactivity out of the box?

Literally (about "washing your hands") Zhvanetsky comes to mind: You must be more careful, guys!

I happen to know a little bit about biophysics. I have been told that literally everything affects the experiment. Right down to whether the lab tech has her period.

As for the radiation... Hmm... You're sure you've heard of Peter Kapitsa? He was a genius of experimentation. Well, here goes. I don't know how and with what someone measured what, but it was clearly not Kapitsa. To remove the side effect on measurement is the main problem of physics experiment.

Figuratively, "you have to wash your hands."

Alas and nah.

===

))) Respectfully. Acceptance and otherwise...


Nick changed a long time ago, you were just keen. Are you telling me he's been messing with people's heads for 50 years? Not washing his hands, shaking crumbs in the flask...

And this:

Right down to the lab assistant having her period.

Now, that's real bullshit. If it's not, the cosmos sure as hell is. Fucking theorists.

 
Farnsworth:

I totally agree with you there. It's getting boring :o(

What the hell are you all doing? I just posted it for fun, without any great ideas. I wanted to show how quickly everything takes shape in the human brain.

And the work is really very interesting, thank you.

 
Farnsworth:

Nick changed a long time ago, you were just carried away. You're telling me he's been messing with people's heads for 50 years? Not washing his hands, shaking crumbs in the flask...

Nectrums are still into that after life. Why not? If the person doesn't know how to do an experiment, is 50 years a guarantee? ))))

Well, he could, in particular, not pay attention to something he considers irrelevant. It happens all the time.

And this:

And this is real nonsense. If it's not, then the cosmos, for fuck's sake - it definitely affects it. Fucking theorists.

I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm talking about the way the experiment was set up. Flies from cutlets, etc.

Then, what do you mean - nonsense? No more nonsense than in your "primary sources".)) Pardon me...))

===

What's wrong with your pecking and lettering? Complexes? )))

 
Farnsworth:

....

Regardless of the "opinion of the court" - thank you for the topic. The topic is also useful because in forex, there are already established "misconceptions/rules", such as "choose your nearest and dearest and forget about the observation". That's how the industry works. and its press is just as sensitive here.

Stol simply teaches to pay attention to the nuggets, while the industry is bulldozing - sometimes without noticing what it is trampling into the mud. Vain attempts to prove the "normality" of the wandering market indirectly prove Stoll right as well.

The researcher need not be biased.

Stoll simply hands over the entry from his notebook - "to sort out..." to us.

Everyone is free to scratch that entry out.

But even if it's scrubbed out, it won't allow us to miss a pattern.

And thank you again!

 
Svinozavr:

Nectr. and after life are into it. Why not? If a person doesn't know how to do an experiment, is 50 years a guarantee? ))))

Well, he could, in particular, not pay attention to something he considers irrelevant. It happens all the time.

I'm not saying it doesn't have an effect. I'm talking about the staging of the experiment. Flies from cutlets, etc.

Then what do you mean, "nonsense"? No more nonsense than in your "primary sources".)) Pardon me...))

Are you talking about Schnoll or something of your own? He seems to be an experienced experimenter, well acquainted with cutlets and flies, he studied them together for ten years and then set up an experiment to separate them. To some extent he succeeded in separating them. Nothing seemingly supernatural, maybe I just "mispronounced it" somewhere.

There is nothing pseudoscientific about gravitational interference. The sun is also on one side of us and the moon is on the opposite side. There's no such thing as, what do you call it... torsion fields and all that nonsense.

It has almost nothing to do with trading, I guess...

 
Svinozavr:

Nectr. and after life are into it. Why not? If a person doesn't know how to do an experiment, is 50 years a guarantee? ))))


Some people have a tunnel mindset. And nothing, they live, they don't complain.
 
Farnsworth:

PS: In addition, there is something else to check. There is a huge request. With MT, I haven't made friends yet, especially with working with dates, and MathCAD doesn't work very well with dates. I need a table of EURUSD, CLOSE, MINUTES:

  • Columns: minutes, from Monday to Friday
  • Rows: weeks

As much history as possible, the rows should be numbered in the order of the weeks, i.e. as if the time series should be "written" with a new line after the end of the trading week.

Sergey, your version is absolutely unrealistic.

There are 1440 minutes in a day, so 7200 minutes in a trading week. One Close + separator is 8 characters. It means that there are 7200x8=57600 symbols in a week. This is the length of string you will have in the file.

FileWrite (hndl, ..., ...) can handle up to 63 parameters. If you add Close to it, nothing will work at all. These Close parameters must be formed into a string and 63 such string parameters must be used in the FileWrite(hndl, ..., ...) procedure. However, the string parameter can only be 255 characters long. 63x255=16065 characters, that is about 28% of what you need. In short, there is no way to write a 57600 character long string to the file from MT.

Think of some other torture, not so sophisticated. :-))

About the discussion.

There are always conservatives and progressives. Arguing between them is an utterly stupid thing to do. All the more so arguing by word of mouth. Until some of the local conservatives have done their own construction of distributions, with their hands and ears washed, no period, and other details - they know which ones, their opinion remains just an opinion. Just like the opinions of progressives. So why argue? Everyone has every right to rush around with their opinions as much as they want. And there is no reason to quarrel. And the enthusiasts of Schnoll's ideas will check their validity without these arguments.

 
Yurixx:

However, the string parameter only allows a length of 255 characters.

Wrong. There are virtually no restrictions.
 

Yurixx:

However, the string parameter only allows a length of 255 characters. 63x255=16065 characters, that is about 28% of what you need. In short, there is no way to write a 57600 character long string to the file from MT.

Wrong here -- the restriction is only valid for literals. You can check with this script:

int start()
{
   string s = "1234567890";
   s = s+s;
   s = s+s;
   s = s+s;
   s = s+s;
   s = s+s;
   s = s+s;
   s = s+s;
   s = s+s;
   s = s+s;
   s = s+s;
   s = s+s;
   s = s+s;
   
   int hFile = FileOpen("test.csv", FILE_CSV | FILE_WRITE, " ");
   FileWrite(hFile, s);
   FileClose(hFile);
   
   return(0);
}
 
Farnsworth:

Yes you are right of course, technically. And I went a bit overboard with 'mess', but there are quite a few problematic situations - purely practical. Fact.

. Of course there are "problematic situations - purely practical". But, to reiterate what I said earlier, this problematic situation does not lie in the methodology of the matstat (theory), but in the scope of its application (practice). This situation, failure to understand simple truths, arises all the time, and on this forum as well. People get strange results in practice, and without blinking an eye start looking for errors in theory rather than in their experiments.

Farnsworth:

You seem to be diligently failing to understand. First an assumption is always made about a process about which little is known a priori, a criterion is developed, then a series is taken and only then do you identify the process - test your assumption. That's the only way. Identification methods don't work without the process itself to be identified. (that's just silly). And whether it is predictive or from somewhere else is irrelevant in this case. The likelihood function is a concrete thing, not abstract, it needs a series (natural/forecast/...whatever) to work.

Assume that the process, with some distribution, is close to e.g. AR(p), or arima(,,,) or whatever. but what p to take? If you know Rasr, you will derive a likelihood function and use some optimal method to find p that corresponds to the max of this function .Shiryaev meant something else entirely, and nobody makes the same mistakes.

. By process identification you mean something completely different from what I mean. I suggest that you meditate on Shiryaev's phrase and feel all the genius of it. Do you really think Shiryaev was asking a bewildered trader pointing his finger at the screen "what process is this? No, that's not what Shiryaev meant at all.

. Here I can't help but quip, - because Shiryaev is a real Academician, of the real Academy, unlike Schnoll.

. And also, on this subject. I will retell in my own words one story (almost textbook), which may help with the understanding of "identification". Secondly, it probably has something to do with Schnoll's experiments. Thirdly, it demonstrates the stated thesis about "the effect of monthly lab assistants on the quality of the experiment". This story happened a long time ago, in the Soviet years. A factory was built for the production of lamps. Over the years, I do not remember whether it was just incandescent or radio lamps. But it is not important. The main thing that the process of production of lamps has been adjusted, production from the conveyor was released in good quality. And then, one day, the quality dropped dramatically. For no apparent reason. A long investigation, inspections, etc. followed. Nothing was found. Then it turned out that a neighbouring department store had sold a salted herring. The workers were buying herring, touching it, eating it, etc. As a result, the quality of the herring has deteriorated. That's the way it is.

Farnsworth:

I'm not suggesting we pray on this work. I merely made a suggestion as to how identification methods could theoretically be improved. Have I written in a way that I've proved something or you've made such concrete arguments, after which you have to ask the admins to delete everything :o) Why so categorical?

. What's that got to do with it! I shall not say about any proteins, - I do not know, and here about alpha-radiation, - do not you see that the results of these experiments were influenced by cosmic (relic) radiation. The radiation is there. Usually one tries to isolate oneself from it. For the purity of the experiment. And here what we see, according to Schnoll's descriptions. They're measuring something they're interested in. And they measure "cosmic radiation" along with it (read, they bought herrings). And then they wring their hands and write, "it turns out - it affects". Clearly the doughnut is going to have an effect. Clearly, during an eclipse the flux of solar radiation is shielded by the moon. Clearly this can be seen in the results. My immediate question is - so what? It's supposed to be like that.

Farnsworth:

You have a misunderstanding. I did not invite criticism. I myself can criticize everything and everyone. I do not ... to all these REANs and stuff. I invited you to read and discuss, giving your, so far, conceptual vision. And I don't really need your secret data.

. What should we do? A forum is a public place, all sorts of rascals come and trample all over the place, that's how it always is. :)

Farnsworth:

And I am not a supporter of sextantism. Where do you see sextantism? Why are you imagining things? Maybe I was suggesting between the lines to take over the world too?

. Sextantism, in simple terms, is the lack of a critical view of the subject of faith. No one bothered to read the work of the academician and evaluate it. No, there were talks in the spirit (I exaggerate here) that the shrewd genius has seen what others do not see. Here, the lonely genius, practically revolutionized science. And retrogrades oppress the Academician. etc. I perfectly understand a personal psychological background of these conversations, but after all it is necessary already when to grow up.

. Guys, this is ridiculous. It's like the conversations in the yard, from my childhood, when I watched a couple of foreign soundtrack films and had a tough discussion about who's going to kill who, brusli or chaknoris.

1...67891011121314151617181920...28
New comment