Iterative Refinement

Quote from ljyoung:

You beat me to the punch Romanus. I was about to offer this snippet which caused me to change my inital statement re PA, which was that it required 3 bars.

lj
More...
I don't even know why we're talking about this. What's the point of discussing it. This whole thing (and not just a PA) is context specific - that has been established a long time ago. PA or not PA, RTL breaks on decreasing or increasing volume, lateral or no lateral, pennant/lateral break outs with or without increasing volume follow up, sub-fractal traverses vs. regular ...

Long list of stuff that does one thing in one context and another in a different context.
 
Quote from romanus:

Long list of stuff that does one thing in one context and another in a different context.

Welcome to the real world.:)
More...

We're all in the same boat, Romanus. Perhaps this is a little hypocritical coming from me, but I'm sure the uncertainty is nothing that thorough annotation, critical thinking and the passage of time won't fix.
 
Quote from 1.6180340:

Well, I have read every single post on this thread and the 2007 thread and there is no definition there for PA. Agreed.

In fact, I don't even have a rough idea Why don't you say what your less than a rough idea is?.
and nor do you as is clear from your last posts I am deeply offended that you don't appreciate the clarity with which I speak on the subject of PA. And I suspect most of the participants of this thread don't know what a PA is exactly Agreed.


I find this incredible, since this PA thing can invalidate an otherwise valid Pt3, as I understand correctly
from the reply that YOU got from romanus (and later sort of underwritten by Spyder) on a question about why a certain Pt3 wasn't a Pt3 Agreed.

So knowing the definition of PA is essential, otherwise you can never get your annotations right consistently and we will always be stuck in the 'M' part of MADA.
More...

The other possibility is that one forgets about the precise definition of PA and pushes on with what one has, all the while searching for the real answer. Then when you think you have it, post it and see what happens.

lj
 
Quote from ljyoung:

The other possibility is that one forgets about the precise definition of PA and pushes on with what one has, all the while searching for the real answer. Then when you think you have it, post it and see what happens.

lj
More...

ljyoung,

First of all, I really appreciate your reply and if you felt offended by my remark I sincerely apologise. All I meant to say was that like most (everybody?) of us you also seem to have no clear understanding of what a PA means, although you clearly described what you think it is. But others seem to disagree with your definition. I really appreciate your attempt to explain it to me.

I think I do have a reasonably good understanding of the methodology, but the PA is one of the missing bits. When a few days ago that chart appeared with the Pt3 that wasn't a Pt3 because there was a PA and therefore we had to be still on the way to Pt2, I realised that I'm missing a major thing here and want to have that sorted out. How hard can that be? But so far nobody seems to have the answer.
 
Quote from ljyoung:

You beat me to the punch Romanus. I was about to offer this snippet which caused me to change my initial statement re PA, which was that it required 3 bars.

lj
More...
... the chart shows PA at ... 1035 :)
 
Quote from romanus:

I don't even know why we're talking about this. What's the point of discussing it. This whole thing (and not just a PA) is context specific - that has been established a long time ago. PA or not PA, RTL breaks on decreasing or increasing volume, lateral or no lateral, pennant/lateral break outs with or without increasing volume follow up, sub-fractal traverses vs. regular ...

Long list of stuff that does one thing in one context and another in a different context.
More...
... definitions are ... definitions :) ... hence: monitoring ... annotated chart & more
... definitions' contextual interpretation is ... analysis
 
Quote from 1.6180340:

ljyoung,

First of all, I really appreciate your reply and if you felt offended by my remark I sincerely apologise. All I meant to say was that like most (everybody?) of us you also seem to have no clear understanding of what a PA means, although you clearly described what you think it is. But others seem to disagree with your definition. I really appreciate your attempt to explain it to me.

I think I do have a reasonably good understanding of the methodology, but the PA is one of the missing bits. When a few days ago that chart appeared with the Pt3 that wasn't a Pt3 because there was a PA and therefore we had to be still on the way to Pt2, I realised that I'm missing a major thing here and want to have that sorted out. How hard can that be? But so far nobody seems to have the answer.
More...

I was kidding but I hate emoticons and perhaps I should use them. There is nothing you could say to me about this stuff that would in any way offend me. After a number of years in the academic/professional sphere I have a large ego and a thick hide.

Be assured that there are those who have the answer but they're not handing it out. You have to do the work - the correct work. Now of course what the correct work is I don't need to say. Everyone already knows what it is.

FWIW I'm going back to Futures III 1/07 and seeing if I can better appreciate what was said at that time.

lj
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top