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
Understanding, that's what I'm missing. In quantum physics, there is no such thing as price! But according to you, there is. That's where I'm confused...
This distribution of increments is clearly "wobbly" with respect to 0.
I guess the market works a little differently than you might think)
"Customisation" is not scientific. The scientific approach is to study the real workings of things, not to mindlessly draw formulas from an entirely different field (=create fiction), however contrived those formulas may be.
++100500
That's the best answer I've heard in years to academics who venture into a field that's not their own.
Yes, the idea is good - no doubt about it. But, somehow, there's something missing... А! Understanding, that's what I'm missing. You're banging out programs based on price, I'm banging out a wave function. And Feynman based on what? That's right, the wave function. In quantum physics, there's no such thing as price. But according to you, there is. That's where I get confused...
Stop reading student books and using student distributions. It's time to think for yourself.
Where in quantum mechanics is price, and where in the market are wave functions? Time to wake up).
Alexander, how about using the fractality index (Hurst coefficient)? As a filter.
Do these same fractals really exist? It's like - what-is-always-similar (from a cartoon).
And there are stereotypes in the behavior of market participants? At different levels.
Maybe they exist, I don't know. But they are not so simple and synchronous as to form some kind of fractals. And in hindsight you can see anything you want - no problem at all.
I will add.
1. The market is basically effective. In other words, there are no signs that allow you to make a profit.
2. it follows from item 1, that the market is random for an observer. Whether it is accidental or non-accidental in fact, is of no importance.
3. it follows from the point 2 that we can work on the basis of properties of the market as a random process.
Nevertheless, friends, this week's profit =+10% and would have been more if not for this disgraceful trend. I will try to apply Hearst to identify it.
Nevertheless, friends, this week's profit =+10% and would have been more if not for this disgraceful trend. I will try to apply Hearst to define it.
This is not a statistic.
Dawkins, in his lectures, demonstrated very well the possibility of more than such accidents).
Maybe they exist, I don't know. But they are not so simple and synchronous as to form some kind of fractals. And in hindsight you can see anything you want - no problem at all.
I will add.
1. The market is basically effective. In other words, there are no signs that allow you to make a profit.
2. it follows from item 1, that the market is random for an observer. Whether it is accidental or non-accidental in fact, is of no importance.
(3) It follows from (2) that we can operate based on the properties of the market as a random process.