Random wandering - page 33
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
What is "it"?
on which side from the "true" origin is the coordinate of the sum of throws. it can be argued (the arcsine theorem) that the probability of such states in the future is higher than that the coordinate will be more often on the opposite side. and that it will be there - almost probably...
And the Attractor of such a sb does not have one.
on which side from the "true" origin is the coordinate of the sum of throws. it can be argued (arcsine theorem) that the probability of such states in the future is higher than that the coordinate will be more often on the opposite side. and that the oa will be there almost probably...
And the Attractor of such a sb doesn't have one.
You can't assert.
An attractor is an abstract concept.
It cannot be asserted.
An attractor is an abstract concept.
But it has a definition that allows me to assert it.
)
but has a definition that allows me to assert it.
)
And by the way, it doesn't contradict what was written on the previous page and even follows from that
So there is no point in arguing about it.
The paradox of infinity is that half of infinity is also infinite. Therefore, besides the fact that on an infinite sample the sum of eagles and tails tends to zero, it also tends to infinity, and it is unknown whether it tends to minus infinity or plus infinity.
Also, having once started counting, it is for the observer to start counting, not for the coin. It is not known by what magnitude there is already a deflection at the time of the start of the counting, i.e. it is not known which side of the attractor is on, and it is useless to rush, it is not known whether the return has gone to zero or the deflection continues.
The first throw begins at zero and ends at about 0 at infinity. The vector in time is to the right.
Dimitri, now think about how the graph will go up or down to infinity rather than towards zero. For a mathematician, such reasoning seems ridiculous. Sorry if I offended)))
And by the way, it does not contradict what was written on the previous page and even follows from it
Therefore it is useless to argue.
Where do you see a dynamical system for your attractor? Maybe your model is a bit broader than a two-mean wander?
where do you see a dynamical system for your attractor? Maybe your model is somewhat broader than a two-mean wander?
It's rammed along infinity. It doesn't matter how many dimensions.
how did you get a coin to remember? who bit it, not to say worse :-)
In an infinity aspiration, the probability of a coin being near the initial level tends to 0. The probability of a coin crossing an arbitrary level to 1. But these are all limits and infinity.
But the levels are all the observer's point of view. The coin doesn't know where it is at 0 and where it is aiming. It has no prehistory. If in 100500 rolls it will reach 800, will it break off striving for both 0 and 800?
how did you get a coin to remember? who bit it, not to say worse :-)
In the rush towards infinity, the probability of a coin being near the initial level tends towards 0. В
Nit
Nit
figuratively, I don't know how simple it is anymore: limit theorems are not retroactive, they don't predict or define individual results. They are marginal. Very large sums, multiple trials will converge there someday.
They have no effect at all on the outcome of an individual coin toss. Not at all. At all.