Any rookie question, so as not to clutter up the forum. Professionals, don't pass by. Nowhere without you - 6. - page 171
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
Now I know what you mean. At first I thought it was a line-by-line tab, but it turns out you can apply it to multiple lines.
That's great. Thank you, thank you.
Does MathPow ((Product of array members), 1/(Number of array members)) not work?
Not really.
Example 1.
0.8 and 1.2 = supposedly an average of 0.975 (described in the post above)
your version is Pow (0.96, 0.5) (& got it right?) = 0.9798
example 2.
4 values, 3, 3, 3, 0.3333 (which is -3)
average on the idea of 1.5 (need to explain why?)
in this case, the result of your formula gives pow(9, 0.25) = 1.7321
is there something unclear about the mission statement? )
or don't know how to do it?
here is a more commonly used case.
We don't hesitate to look for an average if the values are around one.
say 0.8 and 1.2 - we know the average is 1.0
But if you think about it, 0.8 is a 25% (100/80) decrease in relation to the base?
whereas the increase is a fair 20%.
and the result is an average of -2.5%. That's 0.975.
large spread is taken for clarity.
Let's say the ratio of a candle to the previous one can be 5 times less, and 5 times more.
How will you calculate the average of two? To predict, for instance ;-)
1.2-0.975=0.225 not 0.200 like your theory)))) You can't cheat maths.
I do not understand what you mean?
price changes either minus 25% or plus 20%.
so the average will be 45 / 2 = 22.5, ie the average will be minus 2.5%, the total of 0.975
what is wrong? what 0.2 you mean?
GameOver:
but if you think about it a bit, 0.8 is a decrease of 25% (100/80) in relation to the base?I disagree.
If you mean base is 1, then 0.8 is a 20% reduction from base
and then base 1 is an increase of 0.8 by 25%.
Give me the origin to understand where you get the base and the rest of the members, then it will be easier to understand the logic or its problems
Well, it doesn't look like that.
example 1.
0.8 and 1.2 = supposedly an average of 0.975 (described in the post above)
your way turns out Pow (0.96, 0.5) (& got that right?) = 0.9798
example 2.
4 values, 3, 3, 3, 0.3333 (which is -3)
the average is supposedly 1.5 (should I explain why?)
in this case the result of your formula gives pow(9, 0.25) = 1.7321
You are confused about something.
There is the arithmetic mean and there is the geometric mean. You have been told how to find the geometric mean.
In the first example you have nonsense, not an average.
By averaging the 2 values, you should get:
1) with arithmetic mean: Xmin + d = Xavr = Xmax - d ;
2) Geometric mean: Xmin * k = Xavr = Xmax / k .
Xavr is the average value.
In the version you gave, there is a skewness and the more the values are separated from the average, the greater the skewness. Check for values: Xmin=0.1 and Xmax=9.0.
You want the geometric mean.
I disagree.
If you mean base is 1, then 0.8 is a 20% reduction from base
and then base 1 is an increase of 0.8 by 25%.
Give the original source to understand where the base comes from and where the rest of the members come from, then it will be easier to understand the logic or its problems
I'm trying to calculate the average ratio of the bar to the previous bar.
Alas, direct methods don't work here.
It's one thing to add up simple values, but it's another thing if these values are ratios.
An elementary example - one bar is 5 times smaller than another, another is 5 times larger. (you can take 10 of each).
What is the average ratio? It is obvious to me that it is 1.
But I do not know how to calculate it mathematically.
add coefficients and divide by the number? (5*10 + 0.2+10 ) / 20 ..... = 2.6 ?? and what's that, an average of what? certainly not a relationship.
It is possible to represent the reduction as an inverse negative fraction, then it is even possible to graphically represent the meaning.
But I can't figure out how to calculate it.)
Well if you count from 0.8 Yes it would be 25%, from 0.8 to 1.0, but if you count the percentage as you say from the base, 1.0 there is only 20%
You are confused about something.
There is the arithmetic mean and there is the geometric mean. You have been told how to find the geometric mean.
In the first example you have nonsense, not an average.
By averaging the 2 values, you should get:
1) with arithmetic mean: Xmin + d = Xavr = Xmax - d ;
2) Geometric mean: Xmin * k = Xavr = Xmax / k .
Xavr is the average value.
In the version you gave, there is a skewness and the more the values are separated from the average, the greater the skewness. Check for values: Xmin=0.1 and Xmax=9.0.
You are looking for the geometric mean.
I may be confused with the first case somewhere.
I'll try to put it this way - it's less than 20%, no argument.
But the first total is less than the base at 1.25.
and the second total is more than the base at 1.20
is that clearer?
but the geometric mean doesn't work exactly ((
I don't know the exact limits, it could be 0.1 and 20.
three times less and three times more is the same, isn't it?
i gave an example of a sequence - one value is three times smaller, and three times larger. what's the average?
another example is 10 values 5 times smaller and 10 times larger - what's the average?
can you calculate the arithmetic average for these examples, so i don't get it wrong )
i'm trying to understand, honestly ;-)
I gave an example of a sequence - one value is three times less and three times more. what is the average?
Come on, give me the fucking source.
Did you take the value of the last bar closed as 1?
and the 4 bars behind it have a value of 0.33 0.33 3 3 ????????????????????????????????????????????????
Now you have entered some coefficient of your own to characterise the change and you want to calculate this coefficient for [1] bar?