Bernoulli, Moab-Laplace theorem; Kolmogorov criterion; Bernoulli scheme; Bayes formula; Chebyshev inequalities; Poisson distribution law; Fisher, Pearson, Student, Smirnov etc. theorems, models, simple language, without formulas. - page 2
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
If you can't explain it, you can't apply it.
There is a disease called academia.
I have heard of theorists in math, physics, chemistry, etc.
I have heard very little about biologists and linguists-theorists.
This is an area of philosophy.
1. If you can't explain it, you can't apply it.
2. There is a disease called "academia".
1. any study, first of all, assumes independent work and preparation. A clean slate... :-) oh-kay, you can't accept such things on the shaRe, especially without formulas .
What's the point of chewing? Read, "explaining," as you write... Nothing.
2. There is a concept: given/not given... :-) Get technical school with honors and zeal to learn technical disciplines (there you will be explained and everything will be explained in detail, especially if you actively participate in the learning process and ask questions on the subject) and you'll get what you're looking for, IMHO.
Your bell tower is clear to me.
It's classic, there's no question about it.
I am talking about something else, about the overthrow of a complex variety to the level of commonplace, even if temporarily.
It is better to make a set of details and operate as a complex.
You may, of course, answer: "it depends."
I doubt that there are specialists of such a broad profile who can make all the questions raised seem like legos or puzzles.
Imho.
I myself am far from mathematics by education.
...
Far from being a mathematician myself by training.
Kyu... :-(
I doubt that there are specialists here with such a broad profile, who would be able to move all the issues raised like legos or jigsaw puzzles from the ground up.
I don't think so.
I myself am far from mathematics by education.
That's a mistake, there are a lot of specialists, but not "such" as you want to notice, but much broader, broad profile here is more than enough ... debunking your IMHO, get to know the youngest of them and his basic work for you on terver, in application to margin trading, around which everything revolves - that's the basis, then everything else, including the lack of formulas.
P.S. Don't spit, read "don't doubt", into the well read "in the existence of such a wide range of specialists here", that you yourself are trying to drink from.
P.P.S. The experts are there and all the issues raised are even easier than "legos or jigsaw puzzles".
I think it's easier to explain these things in the form of simple problems.
For example, the same Bernoulli)) We have M black balls and N white balls in a bag. Without looking, we take one ball out of the bag and write down which ball it is - how many white and black balls have been taken out. Then we put it back in the bag. In the notebook there are 2 columns with how many balls have been taken out so far - black = X, white = Y. The longer we do these operations, the closer X/(X+Y) will converge to M/(M+N). And for Y correspondingly :) Closer to convergence means that the deviations will decrease over time
There are a lot of specialists, but not "such" as you have noticed, but much broader, broad profile is more than enough... To debunk your IMHO, get to know the youngest of them and his basic work for you on terver, in the application of margin trading, around which everything revolves - that's the basis, then everything else, including the lack of formulas.
P.S. Don't spit, read "don't doubt", into the well read, "there's such a wide range of specialists here." that you yourself are trying to drink from.
P.P.S. The experts are there and all the issues raised are even easier than "legos or jigsaw puzzles".
And then Ostap got carried away...
Roman, you are clearly off-topic.
I can't use almost anything from the subject.
Not my well. Although...
But it's interesting, and I gave my opinion.
And you fan your fingers. Don't break them yourself. You're getting them a little wide.
I think these things are easier to explain in the form of simple problems.
For example, the same Bernoulli)) We have M black balls and N white balls in a bag. Without looking, take one ball out of the bag and see how many white and black balls have been taken out. Then we put it back in the bag. In the notebook there are 2 columns with how many balls have been taken out so far - black = X, white = Y. The longer we do these operations, the closer X/(X+Y) will converge to M/(M+N). And for Y accordingly :)
:-) Completely agree, "in the form of simple tasks" + from myself I will add: or examples, but for example, and even in this case (with this particular in the post task) is not excluded on the back of this question: "And you are now with whom you were talking?) It's not clear... :-)
For example, here exactly, the interpretation of "converge" may immediately arise from the (inverse) side (for whom this problem is intended) - what does it mean??? :-)
Again, some scary formula is present: " X/(X+Y) to M/(M+N)"... :-)
Conclusion: no way, no credit. :-) We want no formulas, it should be simpler... :-) we're not ready... :-)
And then Ostap got carried away...
Don't take the "philosophical question" in vain, don't question the competence of the pros.
Roma, may I ask you not to write here. Everyone has understood your point of view, and Alexei has shown the opposite with his post.
If you are so smart, why are you such a villager?