Forget random quotes - page 11

New comment
 
yosuf:
Does your wallet depend on time? Or does it depend on your efforts? But to an outsider it seems to depend on time!
Well, you, my opponents, are now in relation to the market as outsiders. It seems to you that the market is time-dependent.
 
OlegTs:
supply and demand))
OK, so be it. But where are they on your indicators?
 
faa1947:

Maybe HideYourRichess has never built models with cyclicity or other direct use of time as a function argument? This is not surprising for TA.

I want to smile so wide that the edges of the monitor crack. :)
 

HideYourRichess: Ну а как же, обоснование, или хотя бы понимание - это ведь важно.

The understanding/justification of what? That time is not a prime mover? As if I myself don't know that when formulating equations of motion in, say, mechanics, it's the real root causes - not time - that are important.

That's my point too, that dropped keys are easier to find under a lantern and not where they were dropped. About mathematicians and practitioners (really successful, in my opinion), I have the opportunity to observe both .

I suggested you to start a new thread and tell others how you found the keys where they were lost. Better with real examples - e.g. monitoring the real.

No objection to the argument that Newton's laws are irrelevant to the market?

It was a simple illustration, don't be picky. You touched on an ancient scholastic problem. I illustrated that it was irrelevant.

The root cause - what is it?

How do you mean what? You yourself say this is not the time. You know better than that. And I also understand that the time is not right.

And time, how do fundamentalists deal with time?

I don't know, and I don'tgive a shit about it. If you're a fundamentalist, you should say so. Sorry for the harshness.

It's a delusion. Well, I mean, yes there are ones like you described, but really smart traders using charts look at the root cause in the first place. And for them the time is auxiliary things.

Now what changes from that? I, too, am looking for root causes, among which there is no time. Have we reached a consensus?
 
HideYourRichess:
OK, let me ask you another way, what is the root cause of price movement? Where is it in your formulas?

I see, you are a fundamentalist.

Can I not answer that question? Definitely not the time itself.

 
Mathemat:


If you're a fundamentalist, you should have said so. Sorry to be so blunt.

Heh-heh-heh-heh.)

Almost in the annals.

 
Mathemat:

Definitely not the time itself.

hooray )
 
Mischek2: Heh-heh-heh.)

almost in the annals.

Oops. I didn't mean to offend anyone.
 
HideYourRichess:
I want to smile so wide that the monitor's edges crack. :)

Still, it's not a bad idea to train yourself to always answer on the merits.

In my several posts I refer to specific examples of models where time is clearly of the essence of the argument. Instead you are about caring about your monitor.

 
HideYourRichess: Well, let me ask another way, what is the root cause of price movement? Where do you have it in your formulas?

I like this one:

yosuf: Let's then do this trick to get rid of the "time" variable. I think the price should depend first and foremost on itself, however paradoxical it may seem at first.The first thing that comes to mind is to try and put an integral price along the abscissa axis, i.e. the sum of all prices at the arrival of a given tick. And how to deal with bars? Very simply: a certain volume of the price is taken as 1 bar in the corresponding time frame. We need to decide from which price level to start integrating it?

I'm not interested in the small print. I am interested in the blue font, that's where I look. The author's spelling is preserved.

1...456789101112131415161718...66
New comment
Reason: