Representation of an object in programming. - page 5
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
OK. Let's take a trading strategy as an Object and see how it forms. I'm sure we'll find the same archetype as in the tagged example: ...
Methodologically correct, I think, but for trading I think super complex search models are usually not needed, methodology is needed at exploratory analysis stage, hypothesis formation, and testing is ok with usual numerical optimization, unless we are talking about a completely heuristic system, that looks for new patterns in a changing market by itself.
Roughly speaking, the brain of a trader looks at the charts and thinks: "OK, how can I earn on this? - What if you try this set of conditions? - The "Meta-object" has a meta-object / concept at the stage of vision - "directional pullback" or "saw" or "break/rebound", that is automatically applied to a chart and stretched or compressed depending on certain conditions, for example, like in the task of letter recognition where a letter is recognized regardless of its shape, italics or lowercase or uppercase, etc.
I doubt the idea that we can (in a reasonable time and with reasonable effort) create a fully autonomous heuristic analyzer, especially because it will be more than that, because the dimension and structural complexity in trading is primitive compared to tasks in biology or neurolinguistics, especially since everything revolves around the idea of exploiting features of volatility, or breakdown/rebound.
Having formulated the trading idea, all we need is an algorithm and an engine to reliably test it without errors and perform cross-validation, in short, to make sure that it is not a fluke.
The only thing that can be added to such a global project is full automatic search of all imaginable sets and conditions, and it can hardly be calculated analytically, we need exactly the search, like in the StrategyQuant product, only there we just do stupid search, but if we attach heuristics, then theoretically we can speed up the search.
Thus, we use one archetype of thinking (one engine) to build meaningless as well as meaningful systems.
Got hooked on this phrase... I have long been haunted by the idea that all our models and algorithms are linear, by virtue of the fact that our speech and thinking is a linear process involving enumeration/retelling over time... Some thinkers call man a storytelling animal - implying among other things that discourse is linear, and our mathematics is linear: premise - thesis - proof - conclusion, and maybe it is this linearity that is our fundamental limitation... other thinkers call humans symbolic animals - in the sense that we use symbols to describe reality, but perhaps there is a limitation, a hypothesis/question from ancient times - is it true that all reality can be understood in terms/notions? / will it not turn out that some universals do not encompass something? - Kant answered this question positively, arguing that universals do not capture existentiality, but given the recent trends towards relativism, the question arises whether maybe our symbols and concepts are currently too weak, lower class for some tasks, but this is just a hypothesis and a question...
Got hooked on this phrase... I have long been haunted by the idea that all our models and algorithms are linear, by virtue of the fact that our speech and thinking is a linear process involving enumeration/retelling over time... Some thinkers call man a storytelling animal - implying among other things that discourse is linear, and our mathematics is linear: premise - thesis - proof - conclusion, and maybe it is this linearity that is our fundamental limitation... other thinkers call humans symbolic animals - in the sense that we use symbols to describe reality, but perhaps there is a limitation, a hypothesis/question from ancient times - is it true that all reality can be understood in terms/notions? / will it not turn out that some universals do not encompass something? - Kant answered this question positively, arguing that universals do not grasp existences, but given the recent tendencies towards relativism, one wonders if maybe our symbols and concepts are currently too weak, lower class for some tasks, but this is just a hypothesis and a question...
Very interesting questions you pose.
1. it is indisputable that our speech (or any other form of presentation of thought) is physically linear, because it unfolds in time, however, Thinking has not only physical but also logical dimension , and from the point of view of its logic it can be both linear and dialectical. Well, for example, the fact that I purposely went back to the origins of OOP (while humanity in its mass is linear), is an example of logical non-linearity of thought, while the linearity that you speak of, only a generally accepted order. Thought breaks it all the time by going "back and forth". Just try to prove the theorem without taking steps backwards and rethinking your actions first).
2. I agree with the theory of the limits of human ability to understand and perceive the World. It is not that difficult to find one's limits. For example, man cannot span and process large sets, cannot predict dynamic chaos with high entropy and so on... But, how much does he need it? Man creates technologies that successfully extend his ability to "encompass existentiality with his universals". Kant didn't seem to say anything about that).
3. You've mentioned concepts like "hyper-objects", "meta-objects" several times in various ways. Just on this topic I wanted to speak in the next post and disclose the content of Object in my concept, where "Meta-Objects" among others are present.
I should add that the concept was built with a maximum programming focus, since the ultimate goal is to create a new AI engine, so all explanations and examples will be coder-oriented.
OK. Let's take a trading strategy as an Object and see how it forms. I'm sure we'll find the same archetype as in the tagged example:
1. Strategy is a system of actions aimed at increasing profits from market trading.
2. Actions are organized into algorithms which are activated by certain conditions.
3. Conditions are organized into static logical model, which directly connects external market events and internal reactions of the program. Therefore, we have an external environment, an Event Model (selected changes of the environment with "hinged" significance, which organize them into a hierarchy), and our actions in the form of system state changes - changes of values of important parameters, triggering processes - for example, calculation cycles and generation of secondary events for additional, less important algorithms.
In other words, we have the same Object components in the automatic trading strategy as in the abstract example with tags: The External Environment from which Events are taken and placed in Conditions (and checked at the clock frequency). These in turn form the Logical Model. Further, we have a hierarchy of Event Model, which allows to order and optimize the sequence of environment checks, ... we have States - important values of market parameters and the system itself (a deposit, for example), ... we have Processes - sequences of market states/events that we perceive through multiple data and indicators.
Thus, we use one thinking archetype (one engine) to build meaningless as well as meaningful systems. It is this principle that I am trying to understand fully in order to reproduce independently of any specific task.
I have never seen such demagogues in my life, reasoning for the sake of reasoning, it's all just an ordinary word game which will have no practical application, except perhaps you, Peter, could actually write science fiction novels, with such a rich imagination, and high intelligence, here I am in all seriousness, no quibbles, fans of such are enough
I've never seen such demagogues in my life, reasoning for the sake of reasoning, it's all just a common word game that will have no practical application, except perhaps you, Peter, could actually write science fiction novels, with such a rich imagination, and high intellect, here I am in all seriousness, no quibbles, fans of such things suffice
Wait, wait, wait.) Please don't rush to conclusions, because I haven't had time to lay out the concept in an orderly fashion yet. Perhaps everything is not as useless as it seems at first glance. I will try to use coders' examples and programming concepts as a ground for presenting the philosophy I began with. Maybe your opinion will change after that.
What a surprise !
Peter, good to have you back on the forum...
and at once - ML in the world, in programming topics it's usually Standart ML(https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_ML).
I wrote to him a long time ago to just learn functional programming and the philosophy on which it is based.
I wrote to him a long time ago that I should just study functional programming and the philosophy on which it is based.
Imagine, that's exactly what I was doing). Wait a bit and you'll see both functional programming and types and set theory... Everything is harmoniously interwoven into the overall concept.
7. Let's run the "life" of this "Environment" at a clock frequency and through many threads (for acceleration), but through shared memory (so that the program works with shared memory).
In essence, I have roughly described the steps of how Thinking builds systems. The challenge is to find software tools (or create them) to reproduce this. I think that will get us closer to real AI.
Before you start giving a "more concrete example" try to think about the question:
are the screen coordinates a property of the object
before you start giving a "more concrete example", try to think about the question:
Are screen coordinates a property of an object?
Alas, yes).
This is a quite legitimate philosophical concept, by Graham Harman (original thesis 1999) and then Levi Bryant (2009) and Timothy Morton with hyperobjects, then also Jan Bogost with his "alien phenomenology", and especially interesting then"Immaterialism" again from Harman (2016), in short the gist is that some objects cannot be formally defined precisely, for example a fleet consists of ships and crews, but the composition of crews is constantly changing as ships go out for repairs and new ones are introduced, so the object fleet although relying on other objects (ship, people) but exists regardless of their particular materiality (if part of the fleet dies, new sailors can be called up and new ships built).
OOO is met with severe rejection by representatives of "traditional" philosophy, as it too devalues human existence in such a model of the world, as an example, one can listen to Dugin spitting indignantly about it, it is even amusing in some places. Some cultural critics, such as Stephen Shaviro condemns OOO in connection with "undermining objects" and epiphenomena. Also all those associated with theological movements are also out of touch with "slipping into the nihilism of some speculative realists, where human values are an accident in an indifferent and fundamentally entropic universe".
Other critical commentators such as David Berry and Alexander Galloway have commented on the historical localisation of ontology that reflects computational processes and even the metaphors and language of computation. Pancomputerism and digital philosophy explore these ideas further.
It is probably the latter that is of most interest to us, in connection with the attempt to represent and describe market objects, which often causes a hell of a lot of chorus in the forums.
I encountered this problem when constructing the concept.