Charles Dow's theory - page 68
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
It didn't seem to be about Dow theory at all, though I'm not a doctor of science, I just have a lot of enthusiasm to think
I know for sure that past + present do not decide the future immediately, and then maybe 50/50, by the way your demo account can go in the plus on this number of trades due to soft DC mode (blame MQ for this later), Yuri said about it?I understand your caution, but you stubbornly go against the facts - no one in the world understands PNB, that pisses me off. One American tried to understand it and quit after two months. Mathematicians are silent, they just shake their hands and say: "It can't be! Moscow State University's Faculty of Mechanics doesn't want to hear about it. Apparently, we'll have to rely on posterity. Again, only the computer and hard facts are on my side.
I understand your caution, but you are stubbornly going against the facts - no one in the world understands PNB, which pisses me off. One American tried to understand it and two months later gave up. Mathematicians are silent, they just shake their hands and say: "It can't be! Moscow State University's Faculty of Mechanics doesn't want to hear about it. Apparently, we'll have to rely on posterity. Again, only copyuter and hard facts on my side.
Because the future does not work right away, first you get infected, you go through the processes, then you cough, that's how it all works in this world, why are you so stupid?
or you can get infected, go through the process, then don't cough.
as long as there are processes going on, i.e. it's the present you have, you don't know what's going to happen next.
it seems that it is not about Dow Theory at all, however I'm not a Doctor of Science, I just have a lot of enthusiasm to think
I know for sure that past + present do not decide the future immediately, and then maybe 50/50, by the way your demo account can go in the plus on this number of trades due to soft DC mode (blame MQ for this later), Yuri said about this?
Simply put, a lot of trades that close very fast and a lot, i.e. close to the price, will wipe out all the more rare long trades, and if these rare long trades go into deficit too, then ...
Right now, I'm testing the "Return to PNB" trading strategy. The PNB line accurately indicates the direction of the trade, started a thread, it was taken down not without the help of certain negative-minded griefers, barely, as it started, was subjected to unwarranted criticism and it was taken down, without a reason being announced. Would have been a good trading strategy. But alas.
Right now, I'm testing the "Return to PNB" trading strategy. The PNB line accurately points to the direction of the trade, started a thread, it was taken down not without the help of certain negative-minded gore opponents, barely, as it started, was criticised unjustifiably and it was taken down, without a reason being announced. Would have been a good trading strategy. But alas.
Right now, I'm testing the "Return to PNB" trading strategy. The PNB linja points accurately to the direction of the trade, started a thread, it was taken down not without the help of certain negative-minded griefers, barely, as it started, was subjected to unwarranted criticism and it was taken down, without a reason being announced. Would have been a good trading strategy. But, alas.
you should have declared yourself less of a god, you must have great experience with your audience
well, if Kirkorov's experience is anything to go by, then )
It is all about understanding the parameter and the two EOR coefficients https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/359299/page66#comment_20166412, they model all processes, both natural and man-made.
The main problem in your case with these coefficients is the large scatter in the recalculation.
You also mentioned that you used the MNC model as a basis. This is the most primitive model.With such errors, it is not possible to correctly build a statistical real-time model. Only off-line.
Think about the robustness of these coefficients.
Or fix them by some condition, until they approximate what is expected.
Try TLS or FLS
because the future doesn't work all at once, you get infected first, you go through the processes, then you cough, that's how it all works in this world, why are you so stupid?
or you can get infected, you go through the process and you don't cough.
as long as there are processes going on, i.e. it's real with you, you don't know what's going to happen next.
Brutally wrong. Any process can only be evaluated when there is something to analyse. That is, present and past = history. Only then, does the future come in. Look at the formulas. All three formulas have a common "parent" which is the H - present function. It is differential. Its integration "backwards" leads to the function P - past, "forwards" - to the function B - future, which corresponds to all the laws of logic and mathematics. Only the integration of the past from the future differs in order of process by one, this is the rule of integration by parts. Until now there was no method of estimating this parameter and nobody understood its meaning. I have found analytically an exact formula for this mysterious parameter, but I also do not understand its meaning, to which I confess. The other two coefficients of God's formula are clear and do not require much effort to understand them. One of them is time, concentration and temperature. The phenomenon of time is finally solved, to the delight of I. Newton, who prophetically exclaimed "No time, no process!" Our generation has succeeded in unravelling the concept of time. The notion of "order of process" remains obscure; it is known only by a computer which always gives one as a sum of three functions within its accuracy, although we can determine it precisely for any process. Understanding will be left to posterity, if analysis of the facts does not lead me to an unambiguous definition. One has to understand the theory of integration in parts. There is a direction, we should think and come to a consensus at least. Mathematicians have taken water from their mouths and are silent.
You are cruelly mistaken. Any process can only be evaluated when there is something to analyse. That is, present and past = history. Only then, does the future come in. Look at the formulas. All three formulas have a common "parent" which is the H - present function. It is differential. Its integration "backwards" leads to the function P - past, "forwards" - to the function B - future, which corresponds to all the laws of logic and mathematics. Only the integration of the past from the future differs in the order of the process by one, this is the rule of integration by parts. Up to now there was no method of evaluating this parameter and nobody understood its meaning. I have found analytically a precise formula for this enigmatic parameter, but I also do not understand its meaning, to which I confess. The other two coefficients of God's formula are clear and do not require much effort to understand them. The phenomenon of time is finally solved, to the delight of I. Newton, who prophetically exclaimed "no time, no process!" Our generation has succeeded in unravelling the concept of time. The notion of "the order of the process" remained incomprehensible, although we are able to define it precisely for any process. Understanding will be left to posterity, if analysis of the facts does not lead me to an unambiguous definition. We need to understand the theory of integration in parts. There is a direction, we should think and come to a consensus at least. Mathematicians have taken water from their mouths and are silent.
Now I wonder,
and I've never had to deal with formulas
now that's interesting,
and I've never had to deal with formulas.
Yes, it is a verbal interpretation of formulas.
There are three questions on P+H+B=1, please tell me:
Is it possible to change the past?
Does the future exist now?
Does anyone know the future?
No formulas, just your vision in words, the philosophical content of your equality.
Thank you.
The answer to your questionhttps://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/359299/page68#comment_20186150