Quantum analysis Duca - page 57
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 you omit the word quantum, the statement becomes false. You have to stick to logic.
Yes, yes. Already corrected it.
Whoever taught me how to interact with other people in sales insisted on calling him by his first name (without middle name) and strictly on first name terms.
Why this distantism. I call my mother, father, friend, brother "you". It's no one's E.
If you go deeper, there is sort of a thing: there is a language that can be used to minimise possible discomfort and unpleasant feelings on the part of the interlocutor. This is why you do not want to feel something unpleasant, so you accept the rules and the language of communication in the hope that the person you are talking to will also accept it. And so they "yell", "apologise", be careful, keep a vocal tone and so on, and everyone is happy. When one person deviates from the given rules verified by centuries, the people who accepted the rules and refined their execution (popularly called upbringing), understand those people as ill-bred, and if the interlocutor also argues his behavior in opposition to the "educated" one, this first perceives the second as living "by the rules", because the second is not of ill-bred but convinced. He causes discomfort by "shushing", even though he is not a father, a brother, or a superior and he considers it normal. At the same time, knowing that he causes discomfort to his interlocutor, he deliberately does not change communication.
I also like to "YUCK" in a friendly way. And when you shout, it seems that I'm in front of a potential "predator" who needs something from me. I don't know, psychology. On the other hand, I order a taxi, a guy in a ten-car car arrives. He's in the car, quietly rapping. I mean, it's funny how you can say "you" to a guy like that.
The new religion is straightforward: "Canalianism". All adherents, when talking to each other, must add the word 'quantum' before every noun.
So, the three main channels that sustain our lives: plumbing, heating, sewage. And above them all is a higher-level channel: electricity.
But not like that, but like this: "So, three main quantum channels supporting our quantum life: quantum plumbing, quantum heating, quantum sewerage. And above them all there is a quantum channel of a higher quantum level: quantum electricity supply".
If you omit the word quantum, the statement becomes false. You have to stick to logic.
Again, it is not stated that 'quantum' in Duk's thread is a new term, introduced to reflect affiliation specifically to a processed price chart. And there would be no more confusion, many people would no longer pay attention to the term in the context of physics, but would understand it precisely as belonging to the Dukk graph.
The terminological apparatus is not worked out, postulating it coupled with current terms would continue to cause people to get hooked on it. Imho.
He does not answer the questions.
My first question was what to do when the M1 candlestick's range exceeds the size of the quant by several times, i.e. we don't know how long the price moved back and forth and it is impossible to identify the chronology of the movement.
If you just sift it and take it between the open prices, then the information is missing.
Quantum Cargo Cult... thrives... )))
SUMMARY BY CHANNEL
So, let's summarise the intermediate results by channel.
Firstly, quantum exchange price moves along quantum channels, only along channels and nothing else. Moreover, the channels of movement periodically change. This is strictly proved. It is a law. It creates a powerful theoretical basis for channel trading methods.
Secondly, the quantum price fits into the quantum channel much more precisely, it shows false breakdowns much less frequently, etc. than a normal price moving in a normal channel. Because quantum time flows non-linearly with respect to astronomical time, and the quantum chart, due to this plasticity in time, fits much more precisely into the quantum channel, which is the natural habitat of the quantum price.
Thirdly, it is possible to choose from four channels for further movement when price leaves the current channel. And these channels are calculated according to Duk's formulas in advance, without waiting for them to form three anchor points. And that is the real prediction.
Four channels - 0.25 probability...
Can everything described in this thread be applied to ticks?
4 channels - probability 0.25...
Can everything described in this thread be applied on ticks?
The method works on both bars and ticks. The probabilities per channel are not equally divided, nor do they matter, as decisions are made based on which channel the price itself has chosen.
4 channels - probability 0.25...
Can everything described in this thread be applied on ticks?
The ticks are more convenient for plotting in n-point increments.
Since TC is terribly far from physics and can't even string two words together, I will occasionally devote time to Duke's theory. Let's try to relate it to real physical problems, derive Duk's formulas, etc.
Let's start with - where did the very idea of reducing the price graph to some kind of quantum graph come from and what does it mean.
Generally, this problem is dealt with by Feynman and looks like this:
Note that for this case the speed of light c, the mass of the particle m and Planck's constant h =1 are assumed.
Further I will try to derive Duk's formulas (if possible), but I do not promise.
Let's now try to make sense of Duc's formulas, which he gave his name to:
Now we are interested in the wavelength Lambda=2*r
Let's look at the classical definition:
From de Broglie's formulas we have:
Lambda=(2*Pi*h*n)/p, where
Pi=3.1415926...
h is Planck's constant
n - unit vector in the direction of wave propagation
p - impulse of the particle
In this case, dimensions of the right and left parts of the relation coincide.
In Feynman's problem thespeed of light with (in fact, the speed of a relativistic particle), the mass of the particle m and Planck's constant h =1
In this case the momentum of the particle p=m*c=1.
We obtain:
Lambda=2*Pi*n, where n is unit vector in direction of wave propagation
And in Duk's case wavelengthLambda=2*r.
Where did the number pi disappear to? I don't know... The theory can be left out from here.