Absolute courses - page 34
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
There's a lot of stuff on wikipedia. For example:
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/the-law-of-radiation_Plank
On the graph it is even signed that the value of u has dimension k/nm, where k is the Ludwig Boltzmann constant. That is [J/K*m]. So: I do not know what this means and why. It has nothing to do with power or energy, it's obvious.
There's also a wiki article:ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/absolutely_black_body
Only next to it is a more correct formula, according to which it is constructed. However, the caption under the picture still kills: "The wavelength dependence of blackbody radiation power" - because it's nonsense.
under the formula it says: "where u(lambda, T) is the power of radiation per unit area of the radiating surface in unit wavelength range in perpendicular direction per unit solid angle (dimension in SI: J-s-1-m-2-m-1-sr-1)". - can someone tell me where these idiots saw the steradians (cp) in their own handwritten formula?
And yes, compare the formula onru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_Planka with the truth. Idiots write the speed of light in cube instead of square in the denominator, twisting even the formula from general physics textbooks. It's not just a matter of understanding what they're rewriting, it's even a matter of getting the rewriting right. No wonder the result is nonsense like k/nm.
Fine, fine, but I would ask you AFTER I answer you with the results to disclose how the original data was distorted and to present the original data itself as well. To make sure that your distortion algorithm does not distort the nature of the quotes.
Of course) the maps will be disclosed, I wonder if your method can distinguish sd from non-sd, or from quotes. Actually what has been discussed in this thread.How do you distinguish a FOREX chart from a PRNG?
well of course) the cards will be revealed, I wonder if your way can distinguish sb from non sb, or from quotes.
AgreedAgreed, prepare the files. Preferably two files, each with two columns of numbers. Let's say 288 bars. Or 144. With indication of which one is conditionally which. So I know that, for example, the first column is EURUSD, the second one EURJPY. That is one currency through the other. And not so that I will think that it is one through the other in both columns, and you have it in the first column in the numerator, and in the second in the denominator.
well fucking.... Fuck the initiator's name. Heh-heh-heh. You're on your own. Ok, I'll pick it up later, in a couple of days, I'm too lazy to bother now, I've already started with these from page 20, I can't give it up.
There's a lot of stuff on wikipedia. For example:
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/the-law-of-radiation_Plank
On the graph it is even signed that the value of u has dimension k/nm, where k is the Ludwig Boltzmann constant. That is [J/K*m]. So: I do not know what this means and why. It has nothing to do with power or energy, it's obvious.
There's also a wiki article:ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/absolutely_black_body
Only next to it is a more correct formula, according to which it is constructed. However, the caption under the picture still kills: "The wavelength dependence of blackbody radiation power" - because it's nonsense.
under the formula it says: "where u(lambda, T) is the power of radiation per unit area of the radiating surface in unit wavelength range in perpendicular direction per unit solid angle (dimension in SI: J-s-1-m-2-m-1-sr-1)". - can someone tell me where these idiots saw the steradians (cp) in their own handwritten formula?
And yes, compare the formula onru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_Planka with the truth. Idiots write the speed of light in cube instead of square in the denominator, twisting even the formula from general physics textbooks. It's not just a matter of understanding what they're rewriting, it's even a matter of getting the rewriting right. No wonder the result is nonsense like k/nm.
Do you want to give your own definition of the term correlation, introduced into science in the 18th century by the French paleontologist Cuvier? Or maybe you can provide a link where the term correlation is interpreted differently.
It makes more sense to prepare the files for me first. Then, depending on the results, it will be clear whether or not to bother trying to replicate my algorithm. Maybe he will disappoint you if he cannot distinguish between reality and random noise.
That's what I'm saying, for a clean experiment, you don't have to know exactly what is what, just the order of the relationship with the notional names of pairs like JU-JA-AU or something like that. Maybe on Avalz be able to write off the initiative. After all, he first suggested it))). Lazy, and there is no time now, and want to know the results quickly.
AgreedAgreed, prepare the files. Preferably two files, each with two columns of numbers. Let's say 288 bars. Or 144. With indication of which one is conditionally which. So I know that, for example, the first column is EURUSD, the second one EURJPY. That is one currency through the other. I don't want to think that it is one through the other in both columns, but in the first column it is in the numerator, and in the second one in the denominator.
In excel
First column ED, second DY, third EY=ED*DY (excel PRNG)
In excel
First column ED, second DY, third EY=ED*DY
why are you opening your cards like this.... I've already told you about the sub generated before, and then you send the same thing in a single version, he can move out, say it won't work for the sub and get rid of it. That is why I proposed to make 4 mixes, to confuse him.https://www.mql5.com/en/forum/ru/54199/page33
Why are you opening your cards like this.... I've already said so before about the converter, and then you send the same thing, he may move out, say it won't work for converter, and then he'll get rid of it, as he said above. That is why I proposed to make 4 mixtures, to confuse him. https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/143682/page33