Iterative Refinement

Quote from ljyoung:

If I briefly reflect on my antics of the past several days I would say that I have suffered and recovered from a nasty little cut from Occam's razor {= if your explanation is too complicated then it is, with high probability, wrong}. So if 'it' refers to my understanding of what went on, it is indeed much simpler. Is my present understanding really what went on? I hope so, but if it isn't, I also hope that someone will say, 'Hey lj you screwed up here or you screwed up there' and afford me the opportunity to learn again.


lj
More...

I didn't mean to be rude, ljyoung.

I'm just getting a hunch, that the very absence of such clear and unequivocal corrections you alluded to is supposed to be conducive to your heading in the right direction.
 
Quote from gucci:

....Meanwhile the thorough and unambiguous definitions of tapes and traverses are deemed unimportant... And those build channels...
More...

This was added while I was responding to your initial response. We actually do have some Spyder definitions for 'all the stuff in between traverses and tapes' and by inference, for tapes and traverses. So if a faster fractal, sub-fractal, and intra-fractal traverse = fft, sft, ift = all the stuff in between traverses and tapes, then he has said http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2203447#post2203447, as PTV has noted, that the other stuff is what he calls a "wide tape". He didn't say a chubby tape. He has also said http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2215864#post2215864 that anything less than a traverse should, by implication, cover all the varieties of stuff in between a tape and a traverse. So if the 'stuff' is in between a chubby tape and a traverse, then since we already have the definition of a chubby tape (and a tape) what we're left with is the definition of a traverse.

As I mentioned last PM, Romanus has suggested that one of the characteristics of the 'stuff' is that after the P3 of the 'stuff' has been 'made', there is no return to dominance. This sounds contradictory since if a P3 isn't confirmed then how can it be a P3? So maybe it's a pseudo-P3 and what's that? It's a P3 that doesn't go on to complete a sequence.

So perhaps if the P3 isn't really a P3, then the P2 which came before the phony P3 is also a fake. So why should that be and is there any way we can figure that out?

I'm tired of writing so if you (or anyone else) want(s) to do something to help this effort along, why don't you draw up everything you think you know about what a traverse is . Let me start things out by saying that this: / is not a traverse, where / is a collection of bars greater than 2, i.e., a tape or greater.

lj
 
Quote from gucci:

I didn't mean to be rude, ljyoung.

I'm just getting a hunch, that the very absence of such clear and unequivocal corrections you alluded to is supposed to be conducive to your heading in the right direction.
More...

Hey gucci, zero offense taken and even if you were offending me, which I know that you're not, who cares. See my post just before this one.

lj
 
Quote from ljyoung:

This was added while I was responding to your initial response. lj
More...

Yes, I'm very slow in my thinking. Thank you for pointing that out.

I think, I' ve done a pretty good job with tapes and traverses without getting any reasonable feedback from those in the know.

Edit: You know already, I'm really slow. If you want to see some evidence for the incongruence between the definitions and annotations that follow those definitions, let me know.

Good trading to you.
 
Quote from gucci:

Yes, I'm very slow in my thinking. Thank you for pointing that out.

I think, I' ve done a pretty good job with tapes and traverses without getting any reasonable feedback from those in the know.
More...

I was not pointing out that you were slow in your thinking but simply that you edited your post while I was writing a response to it. That's all. So why don't you (or anyone else) post what you think you know about tapes and traverses? BTW, I am most assuredly not one of those in the know, but then you already know that. However what I am trying to do is to figure this sucker out, so we're in the same boat

lj

Edit: Post the incongruencies and perhaps we'll both learn something.
 
Quote from gucci:

I think, I' ve done a pretty good job with tapes and traverses without getting any reasonable feedback from those in the know.
More...
`

Please post a specific question and we can go from there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top