Random probability theory. Napalm continues! - 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
I knew it. The theorists didn't get to the bottom of it.
and the main thing is that randomness if the urge to change state. shall we discuss that? )
These theorists have already tested everything in practice.
Yours? What's there to talk about? :-))))
Yours? What's there to talk about? :-))))
Yours is
What did they check?
they checked the martin, the staircase, the wave, they leaked, and now that's it?
I was talking to someone with an imagination. Someone who can see things differently.
Your
I respect you as a programmer, but go to another thread, OK?
What did they check?
they checked the martin, the staircase, the wave, they leaked, and now that's it?
I was talking to someone with an imagination. Someone who can see things differently.
Keep going, keep going... I'm off...
Does the butterfly have no memory?
Does yesterday's bruise hurt?
Yesterday's bruise doesn't hurt, but if you hit the same spot after a while, you'll remember the pain. That's what I'm saying. Nothing, and neither do you, so maybe you can clear this and other threads of your ambiguous and irrelevant statements, which you can stick anywhere if you want to.
normal. I.e. probability of 1111101010 from the point of view of falling out 1 is obviously skewed (7\3), but from the point of view of changing tendencies everything is quite normal (4\5). On reflection you can see some funny moments, don't you think? ;-)
And if "1111110001", how "in terms of changing trends"?
It is another matter that the matrix apparatus of ter.ver, in its practical hypostasis called mat.stat - often try to pull on real objects which do not meet the requirements of the theory at all. Well, who is to blame for it being misused.
Another thing, it is strange to accuse the theory of being wrong or unreasonable, using unsuitable arguments.
two questions.
why is it needed if it can't be used? i.e. is this use needed only in theoretical arguments about a horse in a vacuum? ))
second, if there are unsuitable arguments, what if the theory is also unsuitable? ))
But what if the theory simply needs to be supplemented?
Is it possible to relate for example (for one arbitrary series) probability of eagle and probability of change of previous state? Do you think there will be dependence?
And if " 1111110001 ", how " in terms of changing trends "?
can't you do the math yourself? or are we just trolling?