The market is a controlled dynamic system. - page 367
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
In my opinion, really - interesting and has a chance of success. A serious chance.
I envy you if you're willing to take it on.
Not a pat on the back :)
Yes, I do it at my leisure. The system is complex, multi-connected (so it's not all that simple), and its behaviour deserves close attention.
Instability
И. Prigogine
A philosophy of instability*.
Voprosy philosofii. 1991, № 6, с. 46-52
The term'Instability' has a strange fate. Introduced into wide usage only recently, it is sometimes used with barely concealed negative connotations, and moreover, as a rule, to express the content which should have been excluded from a truly scientific description of reality. To illustrate this in physics, let's consider an elementary phenomenon, apparently known for at least a thousand years: an ordinary pendulum, both ends of which are connected by a rigid rod, one end of which is rigidly fixed, while the other can oscillate with arbitrary amplitude. If you bring this pendulum out of rest by shaking its weight lightly, it will eventually stop at its original (lowest) position. This is a well-studied stable phenomenon. If, however, the pendulum is positioned so that the weight is at the point opposite to the lowest position, sooner or later it will fall either to the right or to the left, and a very slight vibration will be enough to direct its fall in that direction and not the other. So, the upper (unstable) position of the pendulum has almost never been in the focus of attention of researchers, and this despite the fact that since the first works on mechanics, the motion of the pendulum has been studied with special care. It could be said that the concept of instability was, in a sense, ideologically forbidden. And the point is that the phenomenon of instability naturally leads to very non-trivial, serious problems, the first of which is the problem of prediction.
If you take a stable pendulum and swing it, the further course of events can be predicted unambiguously: the weight will return to a state with minimum oscillations, i.e. a resting state. If, on the other hand, the weight is at its highest point, it is in principle impossible to predict whether it will fall to the right or to the left. The direction of fall here is essentially dependent on the fluctuation. So in one case the situation is in principle predictable and in the other not, and it is at this point that the problem of determinism rises in full force. For small fluctuations, the pendulum is a deterministic object, and we know exactly' what is going to happen. In contrast, the problems associated with the pendulum, if I may say so, turned upside down, contain notions of a nondeterministic object.
This distinction between deterministic laws of nature and non-deterministic laws leads us to more general problems, which I would like to discuss briefly here.
....
further:http://ec-dejavu.ru/i/Instability.html
.
Instability
И. Prigogine
The philosophy of instability*.
Voprosy philosofii. 1991, № 6, с. 46-52
The term'Instability' has a strange fate. Introduced into wide use only recently, it is sometimes used with hardly concealed negative connotations, and moreover, as a rule, to express the content that should be excluded from a genuinely scientific description of reality. To illustrate this in physics, let's consider an elementary phenomenon, apparently known for at least a thousand years: an ordinary pendulum, both ends of which are connected by a rigid rod, one end of which is rigidly fixed, while the other can oscillate with arbitrary amplitude. If you bring this pendulum out of rest by shaking its weight lightly, it will eventually stop at its original (lowest) position. This is a well-studied stable phenomenon. If, however, the pendulum is positioned so that the weight is at the point opposite to the lowest position, sooner or later it will fall either to the right or to the left, and a very slight vibration will be enough to direct its fall in that direction and not the other. So, the upper (unstable) position of the pendulum has almost never been in the focus of attention of researchers, and this despite the fact that since the first works on mechanics, the motion of the pendulum has been studied with special care. It could be said that the concept of instability was, in a sense, ideologically forbidden. And the point is that the phenomenon of instability naturally leads to very non-trivial, serious problems, the first of which is the problem of prediction.
If you take a stable pendulum and swing it, the further course of events can be predicted unambiguously: the weight will return to a state with minimum oscillations, i.e. a resting state. If, on the other hand, the weight is at its highest point, it is in principle impossible to predict whether it will fall to the right or to the left. The direction of fall here is essentially dependent on the fluctuation. So in one case the situation is in principle predictable and in the other not, and it is at this point that the problem of determinism rises in full force. For small fluctuations, the pendulum is a deterministic object, and we know exactly' what is going to happen. In contrast, the problems associated with the pendulum, if I may say so, turned upside down, contain notions of a nondeterministic object.
This distinction between deterministic laws of nature and non-deterministic laws leads us to more general problems, which I would like to discuss briefly here.
....
further:http://ec-dejavu.ru/i/Instability.html
Irritating because instability is not the antonym of stability. Instability is the antonym of stability and stability is the antonym of instability.
Irritating because instability is not the antonym of stability. Instability is the antonym of stability, and stability is the antonym of instability.
Why does this annoy you? They are just two different sides of the description of the phenomenon.
After all, it doesn't annoy you that the same object can have several aspects of description (it can be both soft and warm at the same time, or even have gradations of "softness" and "warmth" :)
Stability and instability are not antonyms, or rather it is wrong to regard them as antonyms. The same applies to the pair stability and instability.
An object may have stable parameters but be unstable.
An object can be stable but have unstable parameters.
and other different combinations of stability/instability and stability/instability.
An object can be stable as a whole, but unstable in some variables. And vice versa.
etc.
Also, stability is the antonym of controllability, which cannot be said about stability - here, it is exactly the opposite.
Stability and controllability are different 'things'. They are by no means antonyms.
In short, they fool people as much as they can, but there is a grain of truth. Increase of controllability of an object is achieved by decrease of its stability not necessarily. It is possible to use this feature creatively. For example, an object can simply vibrate, and so on.
;) Here is your example, "an object may just vibrate", and it is possible that this is its normal state if the vibrations are steady. On the other hand, if an object, whose normal state is the absence of vibration, vibrates, it is possible that there has been a loss of stability, i.e. the object has moved from a steady state to an unstable state.
Stability theory is devoted to these questions.