Interesting to know ! - 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
You are free to give and use any definition you want.
The only question is who might need your definition and for what purpose.
I don't think anyone would need such a definition. Not even you.
It won't be useful for making formulas and algorithms. But it will come in handy for saving time and finding money in a more specific field.
Keep it simple and strength will follow you :-)
An x(eagle) trend is when x(eagle) goes against everyone and becomes the leader of the movement and everyone eventually lines up behind him. That is where the trend ends.
define things in terms you can understand.
Otherwise, like a pimply young man seeking Eternal Love, in a vast World full of Struggles, Beavers and Donkeys (yep, all with capital letters, to emphasize the IMPORTANCE)
I wonder how old you are. I have the impression that I accidentally stepped on your toes and now you cannot forget. You follow me and try to say something. I don't know what you're trying to say... You hear only inarticulate misunderstandings...
Predestination is Tendency, but only temporarily. The laws of physics are permanent. Therefore, they cannot be cited to describe Tendency. They describe only its permanent part, but do not describe its indeterminacy. In short, they are a partial description of a tendency.
(Just as a photograph cannot describe motion without including the imagination of the beholder).
Who told you such nonsense?
There have been many attempts in physics to change the formulation of Newton's law of gravitation. In all sorts of variations. And these attempts continue.
Here, for example, is the Titius-Bode formula https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Правило_Тициуса_-_Боде
I think this formula is more interesting and important than Newton's law of gravitation (although from the same line), but this formula until now no one can neither prove nor disprove.
And so it is only a formula - not a law!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And why describe uncertainty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally speaking, any description of a trend is a partial description.
Who told you such nonsense?
There have been many attempts in physics to change the formulation of Newton's law of gravitation. In all sorts of ways. And these attempts continue.
For example, the Titius-Bode formula https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Правило_Тициуса_-_Боде
I think this formula is more interesting and important than Newton's law of gravitation (although from the same line), but this formula until now no one can neither prove nor disprove.
And so it is only a formula - not a law!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And why describe uncertainty?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally speaking, any description of a trend is a partial description.
By assuming only Certainty in a Trend and describing it through formulas, we throw out its true nature and replace it with a surrogate. A Trend, by definition, cannot have so few parameters as to be easily described in a formula, because it contains DEFINITION. Under ideal mathematical conditions, we cannot reproduce Uncertainty. In order to do so, we have to infinitely add parameters to the formula. BUT, we are good at expressingDefiniteness in any formula.
By assuming only Definiteness in a Trend and describing it through formulas, we throw out its true nature and replace it with a surrogate. A Trend, by definition, cannot have so few parameters as to be easily described in a formula, because it contains UNDETerminism. Under ideal mathematical conditions, we cannot reproduce Uncertainty. In order to do so, we have to infinitely add parameters to the formula. BUT, we are good at expressingDefiniteness in any formula.
You claim that by assuming the validity of Newton's Law of Gravitation we thereby "throw out its (gravitation's) true nature and replace it with a surrogate".
Silly, of course. But such claims in physics have "happened" too. Such nonsense is quite popular in the near-trading space as well.
On this subject I will say the following:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not a secret that neither planets of Solar system, nor artificial satellites of the Earth, nor any other bodies of Solar system move by elliptic trajectories.
But this is not a reason to abandon Newton's Law of Gravitation.
We introduce various corrections to elliptic Newtonian motions in the form of orbital nutations (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Нутация), axis precessions (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Прецессия) and any other corrections.
But we do not question Newton's law of gravitation itself.
And that is only for the simple reason that Newton's law of gravitation makes it possible to separate the definite or deterministic part of motion from the random part of motion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TREND in trading does roughly the same thing.
TREND separates the deterministic part of quotes from their random part.
And it is this part that we need when forecasting the market.
As for unpredictable, random part of the quotes - this part is of little interest to a trader.
Traders consider this part as a correction to the forecasted part only.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, everything is as usual. Just like in ordinary physics and mathematics.
...You claim that by assuming the validity of Newton's Law of Gravitation we are thereby "throwing out its (gravitation's) true nature and replacing it with a surrogate".
You are confusing Law and Tendency. The Law of Gravitation, notthe Tendency of Gravitation. The Law is expressed by a formula.Tendency cannot be fully expressed by a formula, because in that case, it becomes Law. But, Tendency cannot be the Law, because the Law is one-sided and scanty. There is no place in it for Freedom. Law is a dictatorship of values over parameters. And the Tendency is a free choice by parameters of their values, and a coincidence in the uniform rhythm of their changes. (Maybe this is too poetic a formulation).
There is not and cannot be a "Law of Trend". Because the "Trend" is speculative. It is subjective. It both exists and does not exist at the same time. Depends on a person's point of view. Just like patterns are speculative.
...
It is no secret that neither the planets of the Solar System, nor the artificial satellites of the Earth, nor any other bodies in the Solar System move along elliptical trajectories.
But this is not a reason to abandon Newton's Law of Gravitation.
We introduce various corrections to elliptic Newtonian motions in the form of orbital nutations (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Нутация), axis precessions (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Прецессия) and any other corrections.
But we do not question Newton's law of gravitation itself.
And that is only for the simple reason that Newton's law of gravitation makes it possible to separate the definite or deterministic part of motion from the random part of motion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any randomness in the motion of the planets, is just an error in an imperfect formula. The error reflects the imperfection of the units of measurement of things. The limited power of numbers in describing the World. If the margin of error is too large, the formula is wrong. But, no one denies the formula in the case of small errors. And what is the margin of error of the Trend formula in predicting price movement? 50/50%?
....
TREND separates the deterministic part of quotes from their random part.
And it is this part that we need when predicting the market.
As for unpredictable, random part of the quotes - this part is of little interest for a trader.
Traders consider this part as a correction to the forecasted one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....
It's like an anecdote:
A little crying girl was asked what happened. She said she lost her ball. Asked where she looked. Said she looked on the sunny lawn. Why didn't she look in the shade? - Because it's dark and you can't see...
The predictable part is the tip of the iceberg. The rest is unpredictable by any means.
And in general, it is unclear WHAT in trading can be predictable without self-deception...
There is not and cannot be a "Trend Law". Because "Trend" is speculative. Subjective. It is and it is not at the same time. Depends on a person's view. Just like patterns are speculative.
Any randomness in the movement of the planets is just an error in an imperfect formula. The error reflects the imperfection of the units of measurement of things. The limited power of numbers in describing the World. If the margin of error is too large, the formula is wrong. But, no one denies the formula in the case of small errors. And what is the margin of error of the Trend formula in predicting price movement? 50/50%?
You are an aggressive amateur trader (and not only). A typical representative of the carto-culture, of which there are a lot of nowadays.
You do not know how to do almost anything, and you brag about it. You do not hesitate to flaunt it. You say to everyone, "I'm a special kid! "I'm illiterate and stupid. Look at me, put up with me and suffer."
Some might say I'm trying to insult you! But no, that's not true. It is just a statement of fact.
But this phenomenon of kargo-tupism and aggressive kargo-bravism is far from new. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Карго-культ
And it is not a widespread movement of the natives of the Polynesian islands.
"The kargo-toupee movement" has become so widespread, universally adored and "nationwide supported" that even the concept of reverse kargo-culture has emerged.
Political scientistEkaterina Shulman introduces the notion of a "reverse-cargo-cult" to refer to public institutions whose structure is copied from other countries, but which are designed assuperficial imitations and perform much worse than the original.
Judging by your statements, you are a typical representative of this new movement of "reverse-cargo-cultists" - "special children" with higher education, and a diploma of graduation.
But this is far from new either. There has always been an abundance of such things too.
For example, when in 1903 Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Циолковский,_Константин_Эдуардович) published his famous formula for jet propulsion,"The study of world spaces by jet instruments", there was a whole movement of "literate kargo-cultists", ready on a paper napkin in a restaurant to prove the impossibility and unrealizability of Tsiolkovsky's ideas.
However, Konstantin Eduardovich himself, at the initial stage of his activity, was also susceptible to the ideas of the Cargo-cult.
Tsiolkovsky's very first work was devoted to the application ofmechanics inbiology[43]. It was his1880 article "Graphical representation of feelings"; in this work Tsiolkovsky was developing a pessimistic theory of "turbulent zero", typical for him at that time, and mathematically justifying the idea of senselessness of human life (this theory, as the scientist admitted later, was to play a fatal role in his life and the life of his family). Tsiolkovsky sent this article to the journal"Russian Thought", but it was not printed there and the manuscript was not returned, and Konstantin switched to other topics.
"Stirred up zero" - you should agree, bright and apt definition of Tsiolkovsky for representatives of kargo-cult. This is about you, Peter Konov, and people like you.
And if you don't like what I write, you should read Tsiolkovsky. Maybe his words will suit you better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to draw your attention to the fact that precession and nutation in astronautics are not treated as "errors". There are objective reasons for these motions. And in modern astronautics they are treated as independent motions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the "trend formula error" (which is 50/50, as you put it), the accuracy of objective trend analysis predictions is close to 100%.
As I said before, an experienced trader is close to a pistol shooter in terms of accuracy - 599 hits out of 600 shots.
I would rather predict by fundamental factors and crowd psychology analysis. But the role of modern traders in trading continues to diminish. They are getting more and more "pushed into fractional bounds" (increase the number of decimal places in quotes), and from there they do not influence price movement at all. And so, the only reliable forecasting tool - to determine the price movement themselves- is taken away from them by hedge funds and banks. And instead of honest stock trading, we get trader's deposits eaten by sharks of this business. And this is not trading.
You are right.
It is completely indifferent to what you do NOT know how to do.
You equally do NOT know how to predict trends, trend patterns, fundamental analysis and fundamentals, crowd psychology, etc. etc.
So, what difference does it make to you what to choose to predict and how to predict.
Here we go again... Natives, Cargo culture... All around are Fools... You're the smart one.
If you can predict the Trend with probability(599 hits out of 600 shots), you are the owner of the Grail. Hence - the richest man on earth. Is that so?)
No matter what you argue about, the argument will always end with you expressing contempt for your opponents... )))
But I don't care about that.
Distinguish between Science and pseudo-Science. Your Trend calculations are pseudoscientific tinsel. Trend is speculative. So are your conclusions about it. But you are closing yourself off from this understanding with a science-like screen.
Your formulas can be programmed and tested in a tester. But even if they work there, you will be another owner of the tester grail.)))
Zy. However, perhaps I am disturbing your thread. I'll leave you to it. Spread your "theories" and "calculations" among unintelligent natives.... Those who have no self-respect will listen to you and "feed" your ego.
SZY. The only reliable check of your "Trend formulas" is your trading stats in a real account. Without it, the whole thread is useless rubbish. Show the statistics and then teach the "unwise natives".