The function of decomposing color into shades. - page 17
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
Well, that's enough circling for now. Thank you all very much for your participation and help in finding bugs and problems with my algorithm. Special thanks to you Nikolay and also many thanks to Yuri Kulikov for pointing out errors.
Special thanks to my Nikolay for the visualization algorithm.
I will improve the code and post new, better versions here. I hope someone will use it.
ZS. I know I'm tempted to throw rotten eggs at the man, but let's refrain)))
Well, tell me more about the delta. Why. How. Then I'll know you came up with it yourself.
I don't get it. Are you kidding me or what?
I wrote it down:
deltaR=(R2-R1)/(size-1);Well, I can tell you in non-formulas:
Delta R equals the difference between the R components of the two colours divided by the required number of gradients.
Since we are interested in a linear change in colour, it has the usual straight line formula:
y= a+b*x;
in our case
Well, that's enough circling for now. Thank you all very much for your participation and help in finding bugs and problems with my algorithm. Special thanks to you Nikolay and also many thanks to Yuri Kulikov for pointing out errors.
Special thanks to my Nikolay for the visualization algorithm.
I will improve the code and post new, better versions here. I hope my code will be useful to someone.
ZS. I know I'm tempted to throw rotten eggs at the man, but let's refrain)))
I agree! Just if you suddenly need code, let's take Nikolay's code with a dozen lines, not a sprawl of a hundred lines).
I do not cease to be amazed at how seemingly adequate people continue to fall for the provocations of the topic-starter. He just wants to talk, people!
I do not cease to be amazed at how seemingly adequate people continue to fall for the provocations of the topicstarter. He just wants to talk, people!
You don't wonder. I'll explain it to you and you'll understand.
Apparently, this reflex exists in the subconscious of every individual. I represent the epitome of all things unconventional in programming. An unconventional approach, an unconventional style. So some, subconsciously, see me as a threat to their picture of the world, while others see me as a weakness. In both cases, there is a temptation to "attack" and destroy my position. The motivation is heightened by the desire to score more "points" for myself.
However, - an unconventional form (which I present), can be a sign of not only weakness or degradation, but also a sign of phenomenal strength and ability. In this case, a non-standard Form can claim to be the new Standard.
2. The unconscious conclusion is triggered: "Form = Essence". Most people judge the Essence by the Form. If the Form seems ridiculous or ludicrous, so does the Essence. We all know that this is not a sign of a great mind, but we are subject to this stereotype.
On the first page, I explained the essence of my concept in detail. But, my opponents did not appreciate it. They were immediately fixated on the Form. On a particular algorithm. They said it was bad, ridiculous, slow. They decided that tearing down my algorithm is enough to destroy my position. But they didn't understand the idea I put into the algorithm. Therefore, by criticizing my algorithm, they only help me make it better. At the same time, it still has the same essence - the sameprinciple of colour decomposition.
If my opponents had destroyed my concept, not the algorithm, they would have succeeded. But they themselves have no concept. Therefore, my position is stronger.
All of the above has to do with other contradictions with my opponents. They judge my ideas by the form of their implementation, and do not look at the essence. As long as that remains the case, I will always win. Do you want to destroy my position? - Blow my concept to splinters on the same level that I create it. But that's more difficult than fighting a form of implementation.
You don't wonder. I will explain it to you and you will understand.
...Peter, you're fighting windmills. Well, there's another option: you're Elusive Joe with all that entails :)
Where is the working mql5 code?
Where is the working mql5 code?
Where is the working mql5 code?
You're right about "R = Source_R", but I left it that way because it makes more sense how the algorithm works.
We still need to work on the algorithm. It is not perfect. Perhaps I will eventually come up with the same algorithm that you have. But by going all the way through it, I will get incomparably more. After all, I'll pass a path of knowledge and understanding, and therefore the creative scope of the algorithm will be much broader than if I just copied someone else's solution. Therefore, I always choose my own way.