Bloody american goverment

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ June 05 2002,05:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">heh heh heh!! made you stay up!!! gWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Swedish war hero harassed by fat US civie!! <span id='postcolor'>

Heh, not really. I have a couple of days vacation now before I start working so I have a pretty weird day rythm. Yesterday I went to bed about 210 and woke up 030. I just came back now from my morning run

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">anyway, i  prefer easier/simpler method to calculate. I really thought your last step was unnecessary since we could have used pc-T=Pp and substitute it.

<span id='postcolor'>

I was just trying to show my line of thinking. The easiest way would be of course by vectors:

D = [a-b*T  b*T 0], S = [c d 0]

L = DXS * |S*D|/(|S|*|D| )  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

the reason why i make fun of CS ppl is that at one time, Bill Gates answered like this upon getting questioned by reporters like this:

Reporter: "Mr. Gates, do you think current explosion of IT boom is a bubble?"

Gates: "yes, but more money will come into it and support it."<span id='postcolor'>

Not his fault for believing in his products

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">currently US is somewhat leading in economics and related field due to merging mathematics with economics. can you beleive that there are about 4000 mathematics ph.D holders on Wall street?

<span id='postcolor'>

And yet a monkey can do the same quality of predictions as they do (Nature  p. 395, 104 (10 Sep 1998)).

The best working models I have seen so far are Neural Networks that can modell pretty complex non-linear systems. My field of expertiese just happen to be neural networks, so I might be biased

[ralphwiggum 6]

ah shit! not linear algebra! i hate that piece of shit.!

it's my worst area....

anyway, good job using it. that also looks better(and better for programmers working on related programs)

anyway, that monkey stock pick was the funniest thing I ever saw too. but that stock pick was not true representation of how economics work, since stock market relies on more than economics. there are information exchanges(insider trading), and others. also, that test was conducted for about a yr if i remember corerctly, which is not so much of a long-term in economic sense.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The best working models I have seen so far are Neural Networks that can modell pretty complex non-linear systems.<span id='postcolor'>

can i have my brain replaced with that? I think i'm killing my brain with paste-overdose

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ June 05 2002,05:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have an affinity for literature, but mathematics (especially anything beyond fairly basic algebra) escapes me completely. Now, if you could just say right out that when the value and the demand are equal, a deal is made, I can get that easily. But if you draw me a graph of it I will look at you like you are from another planet.<span id='postcolor'>

don't worry tex, u r not alone. just becuase you are not good at math doesn't mean that you are a looser.

mathematics is basically process of logicall reasoning coupled with many definitions like sin, cos, and so forth. you have look beyond those symbols and comprehend what they mean. now that's why it's tough and math is not the subject that kids want to take.

that graph is more for ppl who took economics. don't worry. I studied econ for nearly 2 yrs..and 4 more to come...

don't fill let down. also, i'd suggest that you learn symbolic logic. these help you tremendously and mathematics and other disciplines are also based upon it. heck, the whole civilizations is! but i'll warn you that it;s toughest thing for newbies.

think of spending many years learning about mathematics and some economics when you goto college. in US, finance is very developed thanx to mathematics, so knowing it gives you an edge.(like how financing works and etc.). One of famous mathematician from France in 1600s(I think) learned mathematics at age of 30, and was also a mayor of a city.(and yes, he graduated froma law school).

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ June 05 2002,06:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ah shit! not linear algebra! i hate that piece of shit.!

it's my worst area....

anyway, good job using it. that also looks better<span id='postcolor'>

Mathematics are always a good tool of making your arguments look good. Especially if you have more formal mathematical training then your opponent. Then it doesn't have to be even correct It is funny how people get intimidated by math. Here is a typical solution to a task in Electrodynamics:

For some reason non-EE people seem to run in the opposite direction when they see it

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">anyway, that monkey stock pick was the funniest thing I ever saw too. but that stock pick was not true representation of how economics work, since stock market relies on more than economics. there are information exchanges(insider trading), and others. also, that test was conducted for about a yr if i remember corerctly, which is not so much of a long-term in economic sense.

<span id='postcolor'>

Sure, you can try to convince yourself of that The fact is that when you after years of training start to work, my monkey that hasn't even been housebroken can outperform you

[ralphwiggum 6]

LOL! yup! exactly!

to be honest, i hate that EE stuff. that's what i like about pure mathematics. only small, pure, concentrated stuff. funny thing is that some of my friends who are good at EE have no clue whatsoever why something works..they just know how to use to formula. on the other hand, ppl like me who is just plain lazy hate to go through all that. i rather enjoyed proving thm then solving questions using Taylor expansions.(did i mention that i also majored in Applied Mathematics?...i don't know how the f!@# i got my degree.)

and that monkey thing...shuddap! those monkey can't calculate geometric sum!

but on serious note, economists are now concluding that short-term(like 1-2 yrs..duh) stock movement is more of a random walk.

[ralphwiggum 6]

here's a proof that most of us has seen:

girl=time X money

since time=money,

girl=money X money

but also, money= root of evil, so

girl=root of evil X root of evil

=>girl=evil

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ June 05 2002,06:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">to be honest, i hate that EE stuff. that's what i like about pure mathematics. only small, pure, concentrated stuff. <span id='postcolor'>

There are a lot of forms of math too. Complex analysis is for instance great and structured while statistics is pure manure.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

funny thing is that some of my friends who are good at EE have no clue whatsoever why something works..they just know how to use to formula. <span id='postcolor'>

Unfortunately many students take that approach. But it seldom works since the problem in electrostatics/dynamic lies not in the equations but in the differential and integral R^3 geometry. So you have to understand the problem to solve it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and that monkey thing...shuddap! those monkey can't calculate geometric sum!    

<span id='postcolor'>

Lol! That's exactly your problem in a nut shell

Real world:

Your model:

Monkey model:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">but on serious note, economists are now concluding that short-term(like 1-2 yrs..duh) stock movement is more of a random walk.<span id='postcolor'>

Typical for you economist to call something that you don't understand for 'random'

[ralphwiggum 6]

eh hem...you are looking at one stock! most economists are usually interested in aggregated group, not individual.

and when did i post that model! you dirty Swedish scumbag!

actually there are some predictable ones such as retail industry's seasonal swing. at least in US, retails take a 'U' shape price as an industry during a year.(i'm not saying about individual stocks. Wal-Mart seems to be a good exception).

but on the average, as seen in your monkey's pick, stock prices fluctuate for no good reason in somesense. so it is random to certain degree. and that 5-yr stats of that stock. seems like it was affected by IT-bubble, which is once every 100yr stuff to me.

also, the model that i'd prefer to describe stock market is sine or cosine function slanted about ceratin degrees.

[Guest]

You complained about my monkey not being able to calculate geometric sums. My point is that while he can't calculate anything and must be escorted outside to perform his needs, he can still throw a dice that predicts the short term stock market development at least as good as your best models

Might that be the Wall Street Journal?

[Guest]

I should add one thing, since you will surely come with the argument that the short term movement is random and therefor impossible to predict.

This is the result from a neural model of the Texas Instruments stock on Nasdaq.

The performance is the following on one year:

Date Range: 4/22/01 - 4/22/02

Buy & Hold Return: -9%

# of Trades: 33

%Winning trades 82%

Model return: 218%

[ralphwiggum 6]

well, your monkey can throw dice around, and most time he'll get same portfolio as best model, but sometimes dice is dice and that would yield situations where he'll end up getting some bad portfolio in succession, while getting good portfolios suddenly. i.e. there's no chance that consistency would work.

my 'model' would have less deviation, thus would be more suitable.(more consistent).ofcourse, draw back is that it takes longer time.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 05 2002,07:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I should add one thing, since you will surely come with the argument that the short term movement is random and therefor impossible to predict.

This is the result from a neural model of the Texas Instruments stock on Nasdaq.

The performance is the following on one year:

Date Range: 4/22/01 - 4/22/02

Buy & Hold Return: -9%

# of Trades: 33

%Winning trades 82%

Model return: 218%

<span id='postcolor'>

Btw. If you want a tip, enter long on texas instruments.

This model has just indicated to enter long. Long trades produced by this model tend to be about two weeks in length and produce gains of over 10%. The three previous long trades produced gains of 8% or more, so this should be a good trade to keep an eye on.  

Here is the last model output btw:

[ralphwiggum 6]

LOL! u r freakin good Denoir!

anyway, i think 2 weeks is not long term enough....also forgot to mention is that econ ppl tend to assume (nothing changes). if given an analysis, it's assumed that all other factors are constant. in real world, one might stay constant, but some factors do affect another and so forth.

in TI case, it could be that TI is now having competition in that market and loosing shares, so ppl are ditching it in long run. and i can still argue that stupid IT bubble affected TI.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ June 05 2002,08:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL! u r freakin good Denoir!<span id='postcolor'>

That's what I always say

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">anyway, i think 2 weeks is not long term enough....also forgot to mention is that econ ppl tend to assume (nothing changes). if given an analysis, it's assumed that all other factors are constant. in real world, one might stay constant, but some factors do affect another and so forth<span id='postcolor'>

Yes of course. This is just a technical analysis. A highly non linear and complex one, but nevertheless it has no connction to reality. Still a stock is usually traded in a specific manner regardless of the macroeconomical conditions. Look at what the model did at sep 11:

It fucked up on one long buy at just before the attacks. On the other hand it didn't loose any money since it didn't panic.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

in TI case, it could be that TI is now having competition in that market and loosing shares, so ppl are ditching it in long run. and i can still argue that stupid IT bubble affected TI. <span id='postcolor'>

Yes, of course it was affected by the IT bubble. But this is an adaptive model so it changes and learns all the time. This is how the model performed during the worst turbulence - less then brilliant, but it came out with a good profit:

[ralphwiggum 6]

well, my long-term basis can pull-out evidence such as stock for Ford and GE.

in last 20 yrs(too long?) GE's shares have been steadily increasing, and company's capital increased too.

[Guest]

No kidding! On long trem two things can happen to a company:

1) It could go bankrupt

2) It can increase it's value and stock

GE and Ford are not companies likely to go away anytime soon. So to come to the conclusion that their shares increase you don't even need a monkey