Discussion of article "The price movement model and its main provisions (Part 2): Probabilistic price field evolution equation and the occurrence of the observed random walk" - page 2
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
(1) this problem is complex and I do not have the final algorithms for its solution yet. But the way is as follows.
If the price movement is finite, and it is finite (the price does not jump to infinity and does not fall to zero), then the potential has the form of a pit, which leads (when solving equation (10)) to the appearance of a set of discrete levels. These levels, in principle, can be identified somehow from the price history charts and , having solved the inverse problem, i.e. having a set of levels and equation (10) at our disposal, we can find an analytical expression for the potential and study it.
(2) You need to learn to formulate problems more correctly (correct formulation of a problem is almost half of its solution) and to correctly imagine what happens in what you describe (I understand that you imagine something, but in exact science it is necessary to formulate it correctly).
Firstly, your equation h = sqrt ( R ^2 - ( nt )^2) is just a circle equation, the trajectory will go to the point t < R / n , further it will become perpendicular to the time axis and the root will be complex.
Secondly, qualitatively identical force fields from different sources (if any) interfere, generating a single field, and there are no crossings of lines of a single force field.
may be useful to someone, or at least curious:
this is a simple visualisation of the statistics. Two regular extrema of the "potential field" (let's call it that. the field is so field...unploughed).
in some areas the price is more frequent than in others. The price is as if attracted to the solid lines and avoids the dotted lines.
It is hardly noticeable to the naked eye, but the difference is 9%, which on the one hand is unexpectedly large for the process that is called random,
on the other hand for earning (exploitation) it is not enough, because the time moments remain unknown.
It is rather curious that in the general case the lines are asymmetrical (i.e. the dotted line is not exactly centred between the solid lines). And the distance is not circular at all. For EURUSD 0.00187
there are more "indirect levels" :-))
(1) this problem is complex and I do not have the final algorithms for its solution yet. But the way is as follows.
If the price movement is finite, and it is finite (the price does not jump to infinity and does not fall to zero), then the potential has the form of a pit, which leads (when solving equation (10)) to the appearance of a set of discrete levels. These levels, in principle, can be identified somehow from the price history charts and , having solved the inverse problem, i.e. having a set of levels and equation (10) at our disposal, we can find an analytical expression for the potential and study it.
(2) You need to learn to formulate problems more correctly (correct formulation of a problem is almost half of its solution) and to correctly imagine what happens in what you describe (I understand that you imagine something, but in exact science it is necessary to formulate it correctly).
Firstly, your equation h = sqrt ( R ^2 - ( nt )^2) is just a circle equation, the trajectory will go to the point t < R / n , further it will become perpendicular to the time axis and the root will be complex.
Secondly, qualitatively identical force fields from different sources (if any) interfere, generating a single field, and there are no crossings of lines of a single force field.
What you call "wave probability field", I imagine a field of collective unconsciousness, in the spirit of Pauli-Jung, I.Danilevsky.
"The price probability waves spreading in their emergent space are generated, in essence, by the entire financial and economic superstructure of human civilisation...". The financial and economic superstructure is, first of all, psyche, and psyche has a number of differences from physics (although many laws are equally applicable).
The mental field of the participants of the process - from ordinary traders to the world elite - is extremely heterogeneous and highly dynamic. And at the same time it is unified, interconnected and interdependent.
It is quite difficult to identify complete analogues of behaviour of mental and physical systems, official science does not deal with this, and individual researchers use a variety of terms from different fields of science. That is, even if we are talking about something intuitively understandable, it is very difficult to understand the general sense of reasoning, and even more so, to express it precisely in the form of a mathematical problem. For example, the concept of "resonance" in physics can be expressed by a formula, but try to precisely define the formula of "social resonance" for some event.
"qualitatively identical force fields from different sources (if any) interfere, generating a single field, and there are no crossings of lines of a single force field and cannot be".
The world-renowned psychologist Kurt Lewin has a book "Field Theory in the Social Sciences". The essence of his theory is that each person has his own "life space", which is called a "personal field". These fields intersect, creating, in fact, the entire social (including economic) space.
The drawings to the problem are an attempt to depict some dynamics of related processes, for example, a ball rolls down a wide groove with a slight slope, which is crossed by a narrower and steeper groove. How to calculate the trajectory of further movement?
The question is not an idle one, it has direct relevance to the topic at hand.
" Your equationh = sqrt(R ^2 - (nt)^2)issimplytheequation of a circle." It is an ellipse.
I attach an explanatory picture.
Literally, "metaphysics" is what comes after physics) That is, you should first learn physics (at least at the school level), and then you can start metaphysics).
It's not verbatim, it's a cheesy high school translation. The prefix "meta" has many meanings, and to understand the essence of the word, it is better to consult primary sources. Aristotle wrote Metaphysics, in it he considers the first cause and essence of being. Aristotle's Metaphysics is still the foundation of modern science.
Physics and metaphysics correlate approximately as a part and a whole. So thinks W.Heisenberg in his work "Part and Whole". So thinks E. Schroedinger in "Nature and the Greeks". The advanced scientific thought slowly inclines to it, studying multidimensional spaces, where physics works only in a part of them.
It's not literal, it's a cheesy high school translation. The prefix "meta" has many meanings, and to understand the essence of the word, it is better to refer to primary sources.
No, of course not) It is exactly the original meaning of the term, introduced by Andronicus of Rhodes in the first edition of Aristotle's works.
Aristotle wrote the Metaphysics, and in it he deals with the first cause and essence of being.
Aristotle used the name "first philosophy".
Aristotle's Metaphysics is still the foundation of modern science.
This is an incorrect statement for the current era of victorious nominalism (in opposition to realism). Rather, his Organon should be taken as the foundation of science.
Physics and metaphysics relate roughly as part and whole. So thinks W.Heisenberg in his work "Part and Whole". That's what E. Schroedinger thinks in "Nature and the Greeks". The advanced scientific thought slowly inclines to it, studying multidimensional spaces, where physics works only in a part of them.
The only meaningful modern philosophy is analytical philosophy, which has generated ideas in the spirit of Gödel's theorems.
No, of course) This is precisely the original meaning of the term introduced by Andronicus of Rhodes in the first edition of Aristotle's works.
Aristotle used the name "first philosophy".
This is an incorrect statement for the current era of victorious nominalism (in opposition to realism). Rather, his Organon should be taken as the basis of science.
The only meaningful modern philosophy is analytic philosophy, which has produced ideas in the spirit of Gödel's theorems.
Or, here we are: a living object, wishing to study,
To get a clear knowledge of it,
The scientist first casts out the soul,
Then he dissects the object into its parts
And sees them, but it is a pity: their spiritual bond.
Meanwhile, gone, gone!
You see, I would not like here to open a philosophical debate about the losers and winners of philosophical doctrines. The topic is very interesting, but unfortunately out of place. It is about what philosophy to use in order to better understand the essence of physical discoveries - in particular, that the quantum world in which we all reside has a holistic character, is described by the number of dimensions greater than 3+1, includes not only solid bodies, but also psyche, and the dynamics of psyche constitutes, in fact, our life.
Having understood this, one can try to build mathematical models of stock exchange and economy in general (and not only) with great success.
Do you have anything concrete to offer?
Is there anything specific you can offer?
My specific suggestion is to start by mastering physics (and maths)
... try to build mathematical models of the stock exchange and the economy as a whole (and not only).
We will have to add to physics and mathematics modern approaches of economic science based on game theory. Unlike probabilistic uncertainty, game uncertainty is poorly amenable to study, but Nash equilibrium theory allows to reduce the latter to the study of the former. Unfortunately, the modern level of development of game theory is not so high to build adequate (from the point of view of practice) game models of the market, so (for practical purposes) usually build probabilistic models based on empirical considerations. The approach of the author of the article is interesting, first of all, because of its depth, novelty and originality in the way he does it.
My specific suggestion is to start by mastering physics (and maths)
And even more specifically - which section of physics or maths teaches you to understand the meaning of a process, in this case price dynamics.
Why waste time studying theories that are initially based on incorrect assumptions? (This is to say that in our world there is much less randomness than it seems, mostly everything is determined by certain cycles).
or at least curious about it:
this is a simple visualisation of statistics. Two regular extrema of the "potential field" (let's call it that. the field is so field..unploughed)
in some areas the price is more frequent than in others. The price is as if attracted to the solid lines and avoids the dotted lines.
It is hardly noticeable to the naked eye, but the difference is 9%, which on the one hand is unexpectedly large for the process that is called random,
on the other hand for earning (exploitation) it is not enough, because the moments of time remain unknown.
It is rather curious that in the general case the lines are asymmetrical (i.e. the dotted line is not exactly centred between the solid lines). And the distance is not circular at all. Here for EURUSD 0.00187
there are more "indirect levels" :-))
And even more specifically, what particular section of physics or maths teaches you to understand the meaning of a process, in this case price dynamics.
Why waste time studying theories that are initially based on incorrect assumptions? (This is to say that in our world there is much less randomness than it seems, mostly everything is determined by certain cycles).
Theorver with matstat and how they are used in radio physics for example. This will make you realise that uncertainty, determinism and cyclicity are quite coexisting in the same phenomenon.
By the way, the concept of randomness is not mathematically meaningful and is only used as part of the terms in theorver.