is retired now but still kicking like a horse!
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Hi TooFuzzy,
Th example of the Arabs(doubling the bet) is not an effective means. The 1 dollar profit is not worth the trouble as you showed.
One should start with 2 dollars and then square the bet:
2,4,16,256... ad infinitum.
That's the winning way, but if of course one would run out of money much sooner.
This sounds OFF TOPIC but it is ON TOPIC. The exponential-like gain of this example is the power underlying the AIM WAY.
But we all know that already.
Conrad
Tom, the answer is easy.
You simply attach what you have in mind now to every IW you publish, as part of the lables on the IW. Then over time any Idiot in the future will know what this Idiot from the past had in mind.
Not only that, but it would show how what you had in mind changed with time. Over the years all the Idiots would understand it.
Conrad
Irwin, thanks for the link.
I will try to read it, later.
I am running out of time!
Cio,
Conrad
Hi Fuzzy, I think we agree.
I was aluding to the conventional 'wisdom' that TA was once believed to be self-fulfilling. The idea was that a small number of traders reacted to the charts in a conventional way.
They 'knew' that at such and such a point they would collectively do this and that, and therefore they did it again, and again.
My propostion is that with zillions of unpredictable amateurs and 'old ladies' in the market(risking their savings) the last 10 years, nothing works anymore as it used to work at least a little bit. The masses do not know their own behaviour, so no one can forsee how the market will move.
I propsed this TIC mechanism that cannot be fathomed.
Conrad
Right on Tim.
I will look a little deeper into the link you provided,But I havea darn good feel as to why AIM works(mosty of us do, I think).
In the meantime I have come to think that the problem of a fromal way of analysing AIM is much easier as I first thought(prior coudiness on clear thinking). See message # 3712.
I think the problem is to identify what is is presisely what that is to be done! When you talk about:
means-reverting log-normal variant simulated signal
I get the shivers! Maybe a coincdence, as there is cold air blowing trough my open window!
That stuff you mentioned is not included in the 3 things I know about math!
I would prefer first, for my own peace of mind, have to know what I am trying to achive. I am not yet clear on that.
Conrad
Hey Irwin, are you taveling on my road? TooFuzzy is there as well.
I thought I was alone, but first I found out that Aptus is on the same boat as I am on and now I discover my road is getting crowded too. That's three of us already! Pretty soon this less traveled road will be clogged with traffic jams too. Where do I go then to find solitude?
You wrote:
I wonder if we will look as foolish as them in a few hunderd years.
It's simple. We are already foolish.
Some thime ago there was a discussion on the question if we would ever find intelligent life in the Universe. A learned professor took the pipe out of his mouth, interjected a pregnant pause, and said:
"I do not think we will. In the first instance there does not appear to be any on earth. The odds that there is any out there are against us. None of us can comprehend that anything that is smarter than us can exist".
Regards,
Conrad
TwoFuzzies....You and I?
Maybe not!
I tried to find something in your statement I could pick on but I failed.
The AIMWAY process is reactive. Exactly as you say it is. This poses the question:
Are Reactive Algorithms by definition impossible to optimise/analyse in a rigorous mathematical way?
At the danger of repeating myself:
I believe not, but I do know it beats me as to how to do it. I still believe that it is the discontinuous nature of the functions as we use them that makes it difficult. Essentially we are dealing with point functionsand that makes it elusive. Even if we formulate the value function on a continuous smooth price curve(curve fitting on the price data) we can not remove the discontinuities that result from the buying and the selling.
Also the stepwise updating of the PC and the discontinuities due to cash inputs/withdrawals add s complexities.
I see the problem clearly now, and on a clear day I might see all the way to the end of it.Still, the practical aspects are not easy to fathom.
Suppose we define the AIM structure in a completely differentiable and integratable set of functions as to how the value(or profit) changes with the smooth input. For as long as no sells or buys are introduced and no cash is added or withdrawn the system is analysable with normal techniques( or rather, with techniques that are familiar to me).
The AIM would function as is it was a process in a factory(my stomping ground).
OK, on this set of functions and various variables etc. we analyse it as we please and draw all sorts of conclusions as we please. If now any discontinuous even takes place the treatment ends there on that limiting case. OK, we simple redefine the new situation and fix the current endpoint as the start-punt for the next period. Also, the we do no longer look back onto the old situation but we simply take the endpoint-conditions and carry them forward as costs, accumulated profit, new parameters, etc. and start again from scratch. Historic data remains available and we can, if we wanted to, use that for current parameter optimisation.
To define the objectives for the studies is a piece of cake(anything is legit).
The process I have defined sounds a lot easier now. In fact is exactly the process I have defined for my Vortex Method except that in that process there are no explicit continuous functions defined. When I have presented the value function as a straight proportionality of time I in fact can model that as a time dependant function of a smooth stock price:
Stock Price(x) = ax
Stock Value(ax) = F1(ax)
Profit Function(F2(ax))=F1(ax) – Investment
No Problem. The functions will contain all the parameters that make up the value as well as the profit at any point in x, which is at any point in time of course as well. The entire purpose in my Vortex Method was to formulate an algorithm that would iteratively process the information from an identical starting point each time a change was made. From this point of view, if the Algorithm was a conscious being it would not ever know is it had just started the first cycle or the millionth cycle. This is how the Vortex Method works. In any case this system blindness does not mean that it is necessary for the process we are discussing. It simply is an aspect of the iterative nature that I see as required for a formal treatment of the discontinuous functions.
I think I will leave this as it is now. The process for a formal treatment appears all of a sudden rediculously simple for actually doing something like that.
I appreciate any comments on this, as after we have defined the functions then the questions becomes: what are we going to analyse in a rigorous mathematical way?
Take the road less traveled. It will make all the difference
The road I travel on is aready empty. Either I am on a road that leads nowhere or there beautiful vistas to be found. Anyway, I am not stuck in the traffic jam on the highway.
Conrad
Hi MM, how about making rhubarb pie?
You forward an interesting proposition. You say that I can do things better than anyone simply because I know precisely what I want!
I have wanted many things in life but may of them I have not been able to get. Plotting functions with computers is not my strongest point in the first place. How plot complex functions is at this moment a mystery to me.
Some time ago I simply started playing with a complex argument in the sine function and it stumped me at first:
What is the meaning of an imaginary angle in the sine function? It made no sense to me at first. Think of a triangle with a angle if i90 degrees at one corner. What would be the value of the other angles? How would this triangle look like? Is it possible to draw one in the Escher Style?
In the meantime the mathematical solution of my problem is as easy as making rhubarb pie(OFF TOPIC). Some people have no idea how to make rhubarb pie, but it can be made just the same.
I do not know how to plot complex functions(yet). I just love to see a picture of sin(ix+y) in various colours.
I say sin(ix+y) does not even has the slightest resemblance to a simple sine wave. Mathematically it is simply an interesting complex function. I can go on on this and elaborate on triangles and so, but this is not the point.
Any experts on plotting complex functions out there?
Conrad
Thanks, Irwin,
I have noted futmagsubsvc@computerfulfillment.com as source.
Conrad
Robo, you wrote:
If you are not willing to make even the minimal effort required to achieve understanding, then obviously you and I should probably stop talking about it.
First of all, you appear to believe that there some identifiable process involved that is easy to understand. Why do you not simply explain it? That would simply elucidate the issue. I might even accept it!
To suggest to me that I am not willing to understand something id ridiculous. It reminds me of the advice I got once from a serious person that wanted to make me understand that it was more efficient to run a pump the water back into the lake with the power that was generated by the generators of an hydroelectric power station than to let the water get wasted. He said: "Look at all the water that runs away unused into the sea. To pump it back up would be more efficient." He accused me of not being willing to try to understand his theory. This person had no idea about energy principles and no idea that the running away of the water was a necessary condition for the water level control of reservoir above the power station. Obviously this man had no scientific training at all.
I do not presume that this is the case in the discussion about Pareto's Rule, but what you say reminds me of that actual event about 20 years ago.
As to the rest of what you say I will reply that I do not have to take every issue seriously. If anything, to treat some issues in my sardonic way might result in a few people seeing some the follies of man. I am not sure that I can make you understand the function of my way of treating some subjects without diving into a serious study of it.
As I see it, my mind is as open as it always was, and what I say is in the first instance not intended as disrespect for what you believe.
If a simple person believes in a god I would respectfully discuss that with him at his level if he appreciated it. I do this now and then as well. I would not ridicule one's faith, but if a preacher pulls out all the stops and try to proof to me that his god exists with false premises then I pull out the stops as well and use everything I can to pull the foundation away from his argument. In the end we both think we have proved our points.
Being right is not always at stake in such duels. This duelling is often effective to sharpen the thinking process, even if the argument is lost or ended unresolved. Being right or wrong depend to a large extend on the premises hat are used being true or false.
Regards,
Conrad
Mysty Front Page!
Hi, when two 'amateurs' are going to help each other time will stretch out to infinity!
I can make up pages but I can not yet link it to the Index Page. So right now I simply add the text to Page 2 and make one long Monster Page with Home Links to the Index Page.
How do I add an extra page?
Thanks in advance,
Conrad
PS:
I think it is funny that I ask some one 15000 km away about this. There must be 12 zillion Dutchmen that know how to add pages to their Index Page! Hahahah!
Hello Shawn, beautiful name you have!
My 15 year old son's name is Sean, if he would have turned out to be girl her name would have been Shawn or Shawna, or with some other spelling for a similar sound.
I am in the process of completely updating my website. It’s a bit of a mess right now. I can't even add a page to it yet with MS Front Page(I am learning as I go, making plenty of mistakes and gobbling up telephone ticks. It seems that off line I can’t save the document. This old dog has to learn a few more tricks). Another thing that irritates me is that I can’t make pictures appear on this Board(yet). I seen plenty of references/links as to how this works, but there is only 24 hours in day. Some people tell me that that secret is that one should work at close to the speed of light. The idea is that the clock will slow down and that you have more time to do the work. I think it’s a crock of lies. The harder I work the faster the clock runs and the earlier it is time to stop. So, if I work at the speed of light, nothing will get done. I think I will try slowing down instead and then everything I want to do will get done in a flash! A whole new Theory of Relativity will result from it: At high speeds everything will get longer and less massive.
Yes, the page with the information on Vortex Investing on the link The Vortex Method explains the formal structure of the Vortex AIM. This system does not yet contain any automatic optimisation subroutines. The name Vortex pertains to the idea that all the loose money will get sucked up like it happens in a tornado.
If you are interested in GlidArc Plasma see
http://www.glidarc.com
Soon I will present my ideas on making BeautiFuel form biomass with GlidArc Plasma.
Regards,
Conrad
Irwin, I corrected the nasty error on my hyperling:
I get a runtime error on the link you provided. Clicking on the Home link on your site gives me a "page not found" screen.
Thanks for your efforts though.
Try again!
(It was your own message)
Conrad
Tim, Aptus, anybody: Testing Testing......
Interesting that this testing comes up all the time and again. Fair enough but I see two problems. I will try to be short:
1) Between 1987 and 1992 I played around with my version of Aim and thought I would, at the flick of my finger, set up a formal mathematical model in the way I might have done it for a process in a pulp mill of a engine design office. I tried to grasp the AIM structure in terms of curves, differentials, integrals, and I thought this AIm Cat would be skinned in a month or two.
2) Although I think I know a thing or 2 about mathematics, maybe 3, the task completely eluded me and escaped between my fingers: I could neither formulate the input and the various parameters(Like Aptus noted), nor the output into any understandable or analysable structure which would lend itself to systematic analysis. I gave up for all I saw a chaos.
Admittedly, professional mathematicians would no doubt get a lot farther in this effort than I could then or now. The thing that stumped me was the discontinues nature of the data. I was used to machines, temperature, time etc. that by nature, or by virtue of simple assumptions, were continuous variables. No. discontinuous jumps in the vale function and the PC that occur with the buys and the sells. Thinking about it makes me want to give up again, although I havn't even started.
To get going on his one needs an unlimited passion for solving this problem, a high level of mathematical knowhow for analysing discontinuous functions and knowhow of numerical analysis techniques. On top of that one needs to know how he would test the formulations to make sure that the proposed processes models are useful, before you would start the real testing or optimising.
We all know that volatility is needed. No Analysis is required for that. One needs to be able to justify the analysing/testing process that we think will be useful(whatever it is). I saw visions of a NASA-Like Team of experts turning the wheels of the project. A large Budget that any University professor would be proud of would be required to fund the research. And then: How many people would pay for this know how in the future?
I do not think that such a formal in-depth attach will ever get off the ground, nor do I think that it will be worth the trouble.
I wouldn't mind being proved wrong on this.
Conrad
Irwin:
OK
Conrad
Hi MM and the sine wave.
When I think of a sine wave I picture the perfecly smooth function sin(x). With stock price functions the smoothed out wave will typically be still not symmetric. Your point is well taken.
Now my question: Which one of you guys can plot the fucntion sin(ix +y) with x and y being real numbers and i being the the unit imaginary number (-1)^0,5
I like to see a pretty picture of it. Can anybody help me on that?
Conrad
Hi Robo, and Anybody,
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Partying Americans! Happy Birthday today to all of you.
Statistically, 1 out of every 365 Americans this year has a birthday today, but instead I think maybe only 10% have it today due to the combined effect of Pareto's Rule and Murphy's Law, the other 80 % of the 365 people have their birthday tomorrow.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
When I put the reaction to the Pareto Rule on the web site I was at the same time editing my site, and as I am a greenhorn on this web building business with Front Page, it took me some time to get it done. That's why it was off-line for some time. Just Murphy at work!
You can access it now via
http://www.vortexcw.nl
and going to the bottom of the page CV and Introduction Vortex Pages.
My response on Pareto to you is on that second web page. I take it in a humorous/satirical way but I am 80% serious about it.
I have read the link you have provided as well. I still need to read the remaining 21.000 sites. My conclusion is that the effect is purely related to the human condition/psychology. The mechanism that is behind the Pareto Rule is unique for each case, or family of cases.
That is my point also on Murphy's Law interpretation: Purely psychological!
An airtight example is this: I buy lottery ticket and lose it. You happen to find it and you win the Jackpot. I am taking about the thing happening as: Something went wrong for me. You talk about the thing happening as: Something went right me.
So, my argument is that Murphy's Law is this: If something can go right, it will. And I relate it to Pareto's Rule via psychological factors.
Murphy’s Law has at least two important aspects: 1) It’s Psychological aspect is that what people experience as wrong is remembered and that what we experience as right or normal we forget, unless the experience is exceedingly pleasurable(or the other thing too), and 2) It’s relation to causality aspects of things happening as such. If something can happen, it will.
With modern views on causality the deterministic nature of something happening can be questioned on an elementary level(particle decay, photon polarization and particle spin, etc). On a macroscopic scale the cause-effect relationship is still true from a practical consideration, and noting happens unless the required conditions are already present (Predictability of future events on the basis of factors in the past).
This a very Hot Topic that keeps hordes of investors very busy. The Market is a macroscopic system. Sure it is complex, but to a large extend it is predictable if you have enough information on input data and on the causality relationships that are involved.
Regards
Conrad
Conrad
Robo Aimer, Anyone,
On Pareto's 20/80 Rule, X_DEV and Murphys Law:
I have given you the easy part of the difficult answer as to why Pareto's Ratio Rule works as it does. But the short answer is still rather long. It does mention X-DEV but that is only as an introduction. WARNING: People who do not want to read it, do not click the link below! The information may seriously affect your opinions.
My answer can be found on my website CV that I am building.
Look at the bottom under Personal Interests with the heading Robo:
http://www.vortexcw.nl/wsn2485.html
Conrad
Hello Irwin, You brought us this information:
46 Listening to the markets, note by note
By Bruce Dixon. Evaluating the market one bar at a time, through inter-bar relationships, can uncover a whole chorus of possibilities.
Now, this is interesting! I understand that first Bruce Dixon takes you to one bar, discusses the market, and then he takes you to another bar and so on, until he has visited all the bars he can find on this interbar network. Nice job this guy has! Who pay for the drinks?
52 Building a better MACD indicator
By Gunter Meissner, Albin Alex and Kai Nolte. How did an indicator with a less-than-stellar success rate become so popular? Because you can manipulate MACD to be much more reliable. See how some little tweaks make all the difference.
Well, this does not say too much. How do you get to read the rest?
From what you say, and from what I said about self-fulfilling prophecy,
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=401585
all we have to do now is to change the tech analysis principles to the current way people trade, and the market will, once more, be predictable.
Conrad
Robo and Pareto's 20%
Say, I would argue that it is much better to whittle it down to 1 or 2 percent terrific stock.
You also wrote:
2) Volitile, historically, and currently.
I say that historical volatility is irrelevant. You can not make buys and sells on volatility of the past. Current volatility is needed. If you can ascertain that via FA or otherwise the volatility is structural for the future then stock that was previously a Flat-Liner is a good candidate.
As for the other things you can collect that under the term: Worth Buying.
Conrad
Hello Robo,
Yes, this is the easy question that I was afraid of, but I love to get it anyway.
But now I am going to sign off first as I have exceeded the allotted 80% time on the net.
I an off to drink beer with a buddy who is watching the Dutchman at Wimbleton. Our Richard is about to win the game!
We will discuss many topics tonight and get new insights on how the world ticks.
Till later,
By the way, Richard just cored more points.
Conrad
MM Sine Tooth?
Come to think of it, you are perfectly right.
I have seen plastic saws in the toy shop and they had sine teeth on them. That idea must have been developed with curve fitting.
Conrad
Anyfuzzymathfuzzyduzzybody?
A thought on market behaviour. Today I wrote a piece on it in Dutch. In short(if that exists) it was this:
Existing market predictor systems(Anything that qualifies under this name) are based on theories developed since 100 years or so ago and the main force/applicability, if any, is a result of the action of a few market players(the general public was to poor or uninformed to play the game).
This precipitated predictor systems with a built-in bias created by the traders of those days. For example, TA being a self-fulfilling predictor system because traders know "the way how and the why of their collective trading behaviour, and respond to the market as they are accustomed to(Few people deviate from their daily routine to go to skid row and become a derelict in an erratic unpredictable way).
The predictor systems are therefore created by a breed of investors that act in a predictable way because the have analysed their own behaviour for 80 or so years. Now, the last 20 years, and mostly in the last 10 years, every Tom(not Tom Veale of course), Dick, Harry and Aunt Jamima has loads of money in the bank(or other assets someplace else) and if not they are pestered to death to borrow it and to invest with it in 100 different financial schemes that banks promote. The herd of ignorant investors(The Scared, Fools, Terrorists and the would-be Rags-to-Riches Millionaires) does not fit the profile of the herd of informed investors that have formulated the rules for reacting to the market.
So, any of the predictors that the professionals are used to no longer predict any better than a monkey with a set of darts can predict, or if there is any predictive power left in the models for becoming rich on the stock market via the 1-2-3 formula then it is a shadow of what it these models once could predict. The masses no longer now who to follow a leader and rush unpredictably in random fashion all over the place without any direction being evident from any vantage point. Add to this the recent discoveries that accountants are now branded as devious criminals so that the Anderson Effect makes totally unpredictable market behaviour a perfect subject for Chaos Theory studies.
The professional investment advisors are going to their psychiatrists in droves instead of to work because the think they should know how the market behaves while they know they have not the slightest clue. The masses are milling around in a daze, waiting for a signal to start stampeding, but they have no idea what the signal will be.
The darn thing is, we intelligent exceptions in this madness, have no idea how we can get the milling herd to stampede into selling more shares so that we can profit from it again. It's a dilemma. No one knows anymore how to sell to the greedy or to buy from the scared.
What are we to do?
Conrad
There is also a Fuzzduzz someplace!
Conrad
ET. Tom wrote:
If after tinkering with PC, it is still the best opportunity for your money to grow, then restarting the account may be the option you want.
I agree generally what Tom already said but I might repeat my earlier version on this:
1) at any time anyone should only own stock that is worth owning. Clearly to own stock that is not worth buying is a signal to sell it(anyway you want to sell is good).
2) If for various evaluation reasons the stock is a good one at the low price, then it does not matter that it has dived, for the stock is a good stock and worth owning. Then you should keep it(unless it has no volatility).
3) At the low price the AIM opportunities are identical as before. Depending on the expectation for the price behaviour, you should(are advised) to retain the PC as it was if you have been buying all the way down. This will result in selling as the stock rises in a proper way.
40) (??? I forgot the other 36 points). Anyway, if on the dive you have not been buying there is a strong outstanding Buy Signal and if the stock is worth having you simply go for the Buy, either with the cash you have or with money you borrow. It is as simple as that. It is always a good thing to buy more good stock at any price!!!!(Many people will refuse to understand this-ask me about it!).
The reason behind this is that the outcome of the evaluation for the worthiness of the stock lies in its current price(among other things). Fooling around with the PC will(generally) create a mismatch with respect to the normal AIM situation. Exceptions for alternative action are usually only justified on the basis of peculiar specific circumstances(not definable).
Conrad
ET, finally a question I can understand! I will attempt to propose an idea.
Now, I am running a severe risk to expose my ignorance. In the past I got some interesting advice. I was touring the beautiful Port Edwards region in Wisconsin, in a blaze of Fall colours(1976 or so), and I heard on the radio:
"It is better to keep silent and let people think you are ignorant than it is to open your mouth to remove all doubt".
Actually, I was touring the region in a car! The blaze of colors had something to do with the trees.
I think I'll gamble today!
If a dividend is paid, the stock price drops(Other things being equal-which they never are). Right? OK, I am told that the this depression almost always recovers and that many people make it a habit to sell their stock just before the dividend issue and then buy it back right away after the dividend issue. The argument being that the stock price gain is usually larger than the lousy dividend income.
This would justify to keep the PC as is and simply sell the stock anyway(or a part of it) even if there is no sell signal. After you get back in then you either start a New Portfolio at the same value (but with more shares), or you continue with a partial buy, and that updates the PC as usual(also having more shares).
I think it is a brilliant tactic(thank you) if the functionality of the stock price dip/recovery holds.
I hate those if's.
By the way, does anyone own stock in the Port Edwards Paper Mill? I used to work as a Field Engineer on the paper mill's waste water treatment plant there. Beautiful place!
Conrad
Tom, I love the humor that you bring!
Terrific idea!
I want to play with Jack in that movie. If he invests in my GlidArc Technology projects we will blow another fortune in 6 months, but we at least get exposure! And, by the way, I look a hell of a lot more handsome than Jack!
Keep it up!
Conrad
Bernie,
There is a first time for most things!
Cio
Conrad
What do you mean Life Chat?
This AIM Board is alive^2 and the answers arrive before the questions are asked!
Einstein may be wrong after all.
Conrad
Everybody Slow Down for while or so!
For 18 hours I did not look at the Board and I am 3 days behind already. How about a July AIM Internet Intermission?
Everybody could take a hike and writes 4 times fewer messages and that would help a lot. With the stock market the way it is I will be speechless for a week or so, maybe.
Conrad
Whow!!!
Mark I am on Target with you, I think.
This curve fitting business has set everybody on sharp! From saw teeth to sine waves and all that! I see a lot of disagreements on the GOOD and the BAD of the topic. My view now is:
1) Curve fitting is GOOD if it makes you a lot of money.
2) Curve fitting is BAD if it makes you lose money.
Next Points:
1) If you make lot of money it does not matter if you use curve fitting or not.
2) If you lose a lot of money it might be more important to find out what the reason is. Curve fitting for optimisation, if used inappropriately, will show less yield than not doing the optimisation(back testing required). I think therefore that that optimisation routines will prove themselves effective or destructive. This will lead to a different way of optimising so that it will work effectively.
I am interested in finding out about the underlying mechanisms for getting to optimisation routines that are logically sound rather than hearing that curve fitting is always bad(or ineffective).
Conrad
Mark on curve fitting:
You define x as the data variable and y as the yield variable. Then you say(I am analysing your statement without first reading to tyhe end of what yu say):
y = ax + b (i.e. a linear function).
Now we need to find the coefficients, a and b such that the function best "fits" the data points..
I would think here that this is possibly unclear as to the purpose of what you are wanting to do: Optimization of the yield function.
If you plot both the input data and the yield data then it would appear that you should do the following:
1) Fit a function on the Yield Data y1, y2, y3,.... and get a function for the Yield as a function of time: F(T)=F(y)
2) Then the question is: How can I maximize the Yield Function F(T) for the investment over a period?(I interpret this is an integration of (F-I) over time, with both F and I=investment being time functions(being dependent on x as well!).
3) To maximise the Yield you should not destroy the original data, as this is the input as this is the independent dataset. What then is the purpose of curve fitting on the x-data?
If you do that then you pollute the input and the fitted-curve-input will change the Yield, possibly in a negative way if you use the new x-data from the x-fit.
4) I would think that a fit on the y-data using the real x-data giving:
y1=F(x1), y2=F(x2),--- yn=F(xn). The real yield is fitted functionally to the real data.
This would keep the real x-data as input unpolluted.
Now I will read on in your statement:
From what you say you might mean more or less the same, as I stated as an objective, but I am not sure. From what you say I interpret that you vary the coefficients in the y=ax+b curve to get a yield function y=F(xn) where y is the yield as a fitted curve(not the y-data points). You do not, as I see now, appear to fit a curve through the x-data as I assumed first you did as well(This was my interpretation from your previous discussions).
In any case, what you propose is, I think, not the same thing! I see Yield as an objective function as an integration over the time-defined instantaneous yields yn=F(xn).
My formulation is not yet rigorously defined, but it more or less fits my view on Yield Optimisation:
The instantaneous value yn of the portfolio as a result of buy/sell triggers from stock prices x(which invoke a buy/sell instruction) and this creates an accumulated Yield Function F=F(yn,tn)over time T.
Is what I mean the same as what you mean?
I see the Yield Function as an accumulation of many yields yn rather than the response curve y=F(xn).
Now, I think this is certainly an OT-Issue(ON TOPIC).
Conrad
Irwin and everybody,
You touched an interesting topic by saying:
Why then would a life insurance company insure against your death because.......
I have been looking all my adult life(before that I was more ignorant than I am now) to insure myself against death but the closest promise I got was the advice of the preacher to keep believing in God so that I would gain everlasting life(lost faith in that possibility).
Life Insurance is of course clear in its purpose but it is a good example of how terminology in non-technical aspects of life is often not properly formulated. In discussions on investing it is often also very difficult to follow what writers mean if we all use different terminology and words like curve fitting. How can we avoid going around in circles?
Maybe we should adopt a method in which we define terminology precisely if there is any doubt as to what the average non-professional investor would think of the term we are going to use. Naturally this will not eliminate this problem but if we think about our intent of being clear in what is said then this thinking will go a long way: Is what I am going to say clear to the reader or do I simply want to fill the Board? With this I hope I will not discourage anyone from using humor to illustrate how people often misunderstand each other!
I think I will use this advice in the future!
Conrad
MM: All waves are sawtoothed???
I have seen a few sinewaves in my life, but I never saw a saw with a sine wave that looked like a sawtooth wave.
I think we have different thinking caps on. Obviously you are writing about stock price sawtooth profiles(velocity, trend reversals, etc.) while I wrote originally about general curve fitting techniques. In that discussion I stated that curve fitting destroys original real data.
In this sense curve fitting may be a "dangerous" technique if it is not applied with good understanding of what it does. Other than that I recognise that curve fitting on stock data may well be very usefull for investment purposes.
Conrad
Hi LemonHead,
On the CCRD I would love to give you an intelligent answer but on the stockmarket channel I am watching there is only tennis being broadcasted.
Ivanisevic is ahead by 5 to 2, no its 5 to 3, shit, it's changing all the time.
Ask me later.
Conrad
Fuzzduzz...Interesting name!
Are you a related to TooFuzzy?
Conrad
Pareto en Robo:
When the question over who en what over Pareto' Ratio 20/80 was asked I checked on the internet(uncountable information) and decided not to get involved, but on the basis of your wonderings I dare to take a shot at it. You said:
But when it fits, it sure makes me curious about what's really operating behind the scenes. Kind of like PI and Fibbonaci ratios, etc.
Pi and Fibbonaci(ook Italian!!!)are of course unlimitedly accurately definable numbers. The PR ~ 20/80 is a psychological/physiological manifestation for which there is no single operational principle at work because there are zillion exceptions!
It can even be speculated that the observation that PR~20/80 is entirely false, as the result is not a conclusion from rigorous testing(try to calculate the Standard Deviation!!!) but merely an impression of what people casually observe as an average for various human processes which are more likely than not impressions of a limited population of test cases(if we know a lot of people that cheat on their income declarations many people carelessly conclude that everybody does it.
My conclusion is that if you study these human processes for all cases in a family of cases then you will find that the PR will vary from []b0/100 to 100/0 and the distribution will be different for each case, and the average will also vary wildly.
The underlying process can therefore be identified as the specific distribution for a response to human activity which identifies their dislikes/inabilities for a certain task or activity. For example the tendency to waste time if one is assigned a task for which he is unqualified(promoted to a position where he can not do any damage).
The results are of course also related to physical capabilities: why is a gorilla occupied say 20% of the time with eating and the shrew about 95% of the time? Body metabolism and energy loss from the body. Of course, if one wants to then you can restrict the PR to humans, but I think it will also apply to various other natural processes.
I think I have consumed only about 60 % of the time that I should have spend on it. So, for replies on this issue I have about 32% time left. Please, do not ask any easy questions that need any difficult answers.
Conrad
Berni, are things getting better?
I am an optimist, but people always tell me that before it gets better, it's got to get worse.
I am betting that it will either get worse, or it will get better, or maybe it will stay as bad as it is.
Cheers!
Conrad
Labestul, where are you?
Now that I found my glasses....
Anyway, via messages # 112 abd # 116 the bell tolled for you.
I can see clearly now.
Conrad
Ah, yes, lets see, where did I put my glasses?
Who are you this time?
Conrad