The market is a controlled dynamic system. - page 480
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
You have given an extremely unfortunate example. Science is a couple of hundred years old. And it has never claimed that"heavier-than-air flight is impossible in principle". Moreover, even in the pre-scientific era, the great Leonardo experimented with heavier-than-air vehicles. And he would have flown. There were simply no internal combustion engines back then.
You betcha :))) As it happens, the history of science, discoveries and inventions is one of my interests.
What is there to disprove those who claim that, scientifically speaking, flying heavier-than-air vehicles is impossible in principle? For the man who built the plane. That's right, none. Let them be deluded, neither cold nor hot.
Are you saying that planes fly in defiance of science? Have you heard anything about Nikolai Zhukovsky? Or are you of the USE generation?)
Yes, I did :))) As it happens, the history of this very science, discoveries and inventions is one of my interests.
You must be confusing science with scientific inquiry. Science is what is written in textbooks. It is a well-established knowledge acknowledged by everyone.
And a scientific search is articles and conferences. There is a lot of noise and misconceptions.
Then what is a little settled and sifted out are reviews. Still more settled and sifted out and already recognized by everybody - monographs. And then textbooks.
I am outlining the textbooks here. There is not much to argue about.
The Wizard inadvertently, perhaps without realising it himself, beautifully articulated the rather obvious purpose of the Marketplace. Equilibrium. True, then he wrote all sorts of nonsense. And off went the gubernatorial writing.
Indeed the goal of the Market is Equilibrium. But not at all in the sense of Y = const.Y = const is the death of the Market, not the goal. The equilibrium for the Market is SB. And it stays in this state for a significant part of its time.
When it deviates from its equilibrium state (i.e., SB), it gives some profit to observant and patient traders. And taking away their coins, traders inevitably, unwittingly, return the market back to a state of equilibrium, i.e., SB. And here, paradoxically, with a very different meaning, the Wizard is nevertheless right again. By taking money from the Market, we restore the equilibrium of the Market. In its state of equilibrium, the Market does not share its money with us.
I am writing in a branch of a representative of another, anti-scientific view of the market and I foresee a typical reaction of this representative. Therefore just in case I will inform, that written are not my reflections, and a modern scientific representation of the Market. If you want to argue, be my guest. Just don't argue with me. Argue with science.
A complete sucker... Doesn't understand anything and doesn't want to understand. Like a sheep stubbornly...
When they say that the market tends to equilibrium, they mean a statistical equilibrium, that is, a stationary process with constant characteristics over time. And not only mathematical ones (moments of a random variable), but also physical ones - for example, velocity.
Such is, for example, the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, on which you can and should earn. The same goes for the transition of the market from a nonequilibrium state to an equilibrium state - the so-called relaxation.
Dear Sir, what education do you have? Where are you going with your SB? Why are you embarrassing yourself?
A total sucker... Doesn't understand anything and doesn't want to. Like a sheep stubbornly...
When they say that the market tends towards equilibrium, they mean statistical equilibrium, i.e. a stationary process with constant characteristics over time. And not only mathematical ones (moments of a random variable), but also physical ones - for example, velocity.
Such is, for example, the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, on which you can and should earn. The same goes for the transition of the market from a nonequilibrium state to an equilibrium state - the so-called relaxation.
Dear Sir, what education do you have? Where are you going with your SB? Why are you embarrassing yourself?
It's complete nonsense. There's not even much to comment on. The market is almost SB. SB is an unsteady process. And you, Alexander, are capitalizing a little and so far on the slight difference between real BP and SB that some instruments exhibit antipersistence for a while on some time scale.
This is the five hundredth time you've asked everyone here about education. Why?
Total nonsense. There's almost nothing to even comment on. The market is almost SB. SB is an unsteady process. And you, Alexander, are capitalizing a little and so far on the slight difference between real BP and SB that some instruments exhibit antipersistence for a while on some time scale.
This is the five hundredth time you've asked everyone here about education. Why?
Okay. You don't need an education.
I'm telling you the physics of the process. I make my living from one state to another. But what makes you so sure that the equilibrium state is the SB? It is completely incomprehensible.
The equilibrium state is a stationary process. And what the Wizard wrote Y=const should be understood as the expectation of the process. And this is correct.
Further, you actually state that the stationary process is SB. What about the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process?
You are introducing confusion and baloney. This is totally unacceptable. Please leave the forum, please.
Please - leave the forum, please.
You are simply beautiful. You are my best patient ))). It's been a long time since I've seen such a selection of weakly differentiated nonsense.
Alexander, you should read something at your leisure. Read Shiryaev. At least the first volume. You've got such a mess in your head. I'm amazed.
All right. You don't need an education.
I'm telling you the physics of the process. I make my living just from going from one state to another. But what makes you so sure that the equilibrium state is the SB? It is completely incomprehensible.
The equilibrium state is a stationary process. And what the Wizard wrote Y=const should be understood as the expectation of the process. And this is correct.
Further, you actually state that the stationary process is SB. What about the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process?
You are introducing confusion and baloney. This is totally unacceptable. Please leave the forum, please.
That's not true either, in fact. There are boundaries.
That's not true either, really. There are boundaries.