Search results

could not be better served ^^ I had to face a Lat into a Lat. I tried to guess how this works on the log.

No, and that's what I see now I don't know yet if I'm ok with the retro action, but anyway I just feel like "I hope there will be plenty of Lats (and even Lat inside Lat !) in the next charts; henceforth, I see them as quite interesting and exciting to log. Don't ask why ^^

I've just reread this. The capital "P" for Position column solves the following : I was gonna say I feel stupid, but I should rather say I'm doing big efforts currently that make me overwhelmed a bit, so I miss some easy and obvious signs. I apologize for that even though I understand myself.

If this is true, then my last DD that I posted some seconds after you posted your post, then my DD was partially true. -> If bar 4's close had been inside the LAT BUT its leg 3 had been the same as it is here, retro would also be activated, onwards. There is just something a bit curious I see...

If that previous LAT does not see a retro triggered, but the following yes, according to : , then let's talk about differenciation. If I see two similar things and you say the result is not the same, there must be somehting differentiating the two things with each other. What difference...

What I use to decide if a retro is activated is this : So, does this Lat have a 4th bar ? You say it has 6. So it has 4. So it needs a retro. But you say it's not activated. Here, I don't understand what you mean. Thanks a lot, you already told me this. I apologize that I did not manage...

Meanwhile, I begin to annotate and log 03/28/19.

I've done my best to understand and applicate what you said, but this is maybe not perfectly assimilated yet.

What I deduce here is that (the BO barof the lateral) = the functional BO (the confirmation) = the technical BO That's how I see the thing : bar 4 is the functional BO, bar 6 is the technical/confirmation BO. So bar 6 does not "need a numeric label". Then, if you say what you said, this means...

I am everything but satisfied about it, it's a first "throw on the paper and try to link/ get separated what is to be" about the EEs. It must represent a bit less of the fifth of the whole mindmap I have about the work. It's the first version I just finished (as for EE part), and it's a very...

What a feeling...... Strangely, this seems now clear to me. What I deductively understand is then that PP6 describes three T1s not being superior to each other. I'll have to fix what I just said means really. For now, I'd say bar 9 was a PP6 EE so bar 10 is P1 assigned. Hi hi cascading effect...

Bar 1 : sent is long, as I put the carry over aside for now, I ignore what is on the left. P1 is assigned at bottom so long BM because of the sent. Bar 2 : SYM, DEC volume, a first tape is built and it's a long one as that's what makes most sense considering both bar 1 and 2. Bar 3 : LAT 3 and...

It appears like there's a bug, my prior post was directed to @Simples 's last post with comments within quoted text. The "reply" button seems to misfunction currently for me .

This provides a lot of clarity too, thank you very much

It is (about to be solved) There is reading, reviewing, AND there is assimilate = incorporate inside oneself until "this" is leading one, rather than "one is following this". And then, the prior short RTL is not longer to be taken into a count, it is part of the past and not used as a...

Finally, I have a very little moment, and as I want to optimize it : Trying to stick to that Yes it does, its close is above prior rtl which was short, so BO,T1, short BM at top being as last one was long at bottom of both bars 6 and 7. And then, that's how I see what follows : Bar 8 ...

Necessary conditions are not gathered today to make me able to work. I must wait until tomorrow. Take care of you, best day and IR to you and see you tomorrow morning.