Grail indicators - page 15
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 so, that changes things fundamentally. You didn't mention the relationship of these variables, and this is the first I've heard of it now. Otherwise I would have introduced such relationships from the beginning.
For their connection and method of calculation so far, see here: https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/250 what is not clear, I will explain.
Give a clear algorithm for linking them.
What anger? I love you all.
The Almighty has made the necessary simple and the complex unnecessary (c)
Right now we are trying to talk to the Almighty in his language - the language of the integral, oddly enough.
It's hard to figure out the simple things (c)
Give a clear algorithm for linking them.
Will the Exel variant of linking them work? Because the formulas are too complicated, although they are clearly linked in the article.
Let's do the Exel variant, that's fine. And in the article, as far as I remember, the linkage was a double helix. I'll try to dig into it again now.
Let's go with that, that'll do. And in the article, as far as I remember, the linkage was a double helix. I'll try to go over it again.
Now we are just trying to talk to the Almighty in his language - the language of the integral, oddly enough.
It's hard to figure out simple things (c)
Oh, dear! And Einstein was satisfied with the square root.
Oh, my God! And Einstein was satisfied with the square root.
There is no such identity.
The results of the test:
.
The equality holds only at zero
.
Where is the error? At the level of conception or at the level of implementation? Or should it be so and there is no error?
A general check of my assumption on the connection of times by an example of the price change process:
Let's take an arbitrary price change over the last 4 bars:
We have 3 price increments relative to the original price, so t = 3; computed values n = 2.954197002; tau = 0.577292852;
The calculated values of the integrals of the past function P(t) and the E-function, as well as the present function H(t), are equal:
P(t, n, t) = 0.10283238;
H(t, n, t) = 0.158231643;
E(t, n, t) = 0.261064018;
P(t, n, t) + H(t, n, t) = 0.10283238 + 0.158231643 = 0.261064023 = E(t, n, t);
error 0.261064023 - 0.261064018 = 4.90449E-9. Probably, it is a computer error or error of estimation of n and tau by method and formulas which I suggested. That was required to prove.
This striking fact does not leave doubts in correctness of my conclusion on unity of epochs: Past + Present + Future = 1:
B(t, n, t) = 1 - E(t, n, t) = 1 - 0.261064018 = 0.738935982;
P(t, n, t) + H(t, n, t) + B(t, n, t) = 0.10283238 + 0.158231643 + 0.738935982 = 1.000000005
I think this conclusion about connection of epochs for mankind is more important, than Perelman's conclusion about virtual possibility of "revolution" of the Universe.
What use is it to the trader? Let's find out:
With this price change, the trader concludes that, by the end of the 3rd bar, the trend is formed by 10.28%, the last bar gives an increment of 15.82% to the trend and it will grow another 73.89% in the future.
Here is the trend itself:
This striking fact leaves no doubt as to the correctness of my conclusion on the unity of epochs: Past + Present + Future = 1:
B(t, n, t) = 1 - E(t, n, t) = 1 - 0.261064018 = 0.738935982;
P(t, n, t) + H(t, n, t) + B(t, n, t) = 0.10283238 + 0.158231643 + 0.738935982 = 1.000000005
I think this conclusion about connection of epochs for mankind is more important, than Perelman's conclusion about virtual possibility of "revolution" of the Universe.
What use is it to the trader? Let's find out:
IMHO, Yusuf land on sinful earth. )))))))
To put it strictly, you claim that if you know the future, you can clearly identify where the present leads.
And as for your "inventions" - look up what eigen forms of operators are and how many solutions overdetermined systems have.
On the fingers, what you, in my opinion, do not understand: you are trying to solve a problem with a free right-hand edge. Such problems have infinitely many solutions. And these solutions become unambiguous when they are further defined. It is like an integration problem - an indefinite integral has a whole family of first forms, so to speak.
In some particular cases of problems (elliptic/parabolic/hyperbolic type) those for which the solution exists are represented by forms (eigenvalue problem). There are infinitely many such forms, but they are related by a general relation - just the one you write about ))))))))))))). The classical way of solving it is to identify the regularities and extrapolate them beyond the right-hand edge, i.e. to reduce it to a fixed-edge solution (the Cauchy boundary problem). That is, what you "invented" is a standard relationship for eigenforms. By the way, that's where Fourier methods come from, only Fourier is not designed for extrapolation as it only applies to periodic functions).
Physically you argue that if you fix the right edge in the present, you can extrapolate the future more accurately (know what the present leads to === know the future; perhaps the future is predetermined by higher forces, but IMHO not 100% : the main component is the factors acting on the right edge, which are never 100% known ;)) That's if strictly.
And your statement is roughly like this - "if I know the future, I can tell what conditions were on the right edge of the present" - and what of it for the trader ?????????? To say that if he had bought/sold a few bars ago, he would already be in profit ? ))))))))))) so he can see that from the ))))))))))))))))) chart anyway.
By the way, again IMHO, that is the reason why nothing more stable working from TS has been invented than the technique of following the market.) I mean that paukas is right ;).
ZZZ again IMHO: that's why you have to build crazy TS according to your indicators - you are trying to guess and over sit. Try a constant lot and a short stop for your TS test ;) and as they say, spring will show who and where .... ;). By the way, optimising with a short stop is much more likely to run into a pattern ;).