Quote from PointOne:
The ))'s is the current decade. The clue is on your keyboard.
Good AM pointone,
Got to be an EE thing (ho,ho).
The mists are swirling about here in the Pacific NW which rather accurately describes the present state of my resolution of the PVAD wave thingy. Your point re dimensionality is reasonable and by implication I take it that if you are correct, one should question whether the deconvolution of the "market wave" can be realized by simply adding together wave forms of different amplitudes, frequencies and phase angles.
As well you know any wave form curve can be deconstructed using some combination of sine and cosine functions (the latter being transformed into the former by a phase angle shift of 90 degrees). At the end of such an exercise one is left asking oneself, "So what?" Is this a meaningful deconvolution or just a paper construct and my answer to this is a very profound, "Me not know, right now."
What I believe to be true, is that any and all "probes" of the market can be derived from three observables: (P)rice, (V)olume and (t)ime. We are constrained to considering only the right half of a sphere bounding these variables by the simple fact that we cannot set a developing price action back in time. The right boundary separates the present from the future.
As I've said above, I do not know exactly how the PVAD components interact with each other and how well what has been defined as sentiment [(A)ccumulation/(D)istribution] reflects the present or future intentions of the players. These are nontrivial matters, as we all know, not only because of the many different types of players in the market but also for the different reasons why a given player may buy (to go long or to "cover") or sell (to go short or to "cover") and as well the motivation of the player for any of these actions. I could go on a bit further but I think that what I've said is enough crap for today and probably a few days to come.
As I've said before what we do have right now is a very good way of looking at the market in the sense that it will allow us to make money if we understand and use it correctly. What "it" is, is of course, JHT(Jack Hershey Theory). There is also JHMethod and that is where Jack and I part company. He strongly believes in his protocol and I simply believe that it ain't the only way to do it. We have different biases and different disciplines that we bring to the market. Experimental spectroscopists do not look at waves in the same way as theoretical spectroscopists or EE's and CE's. As Mr. Wolf remarked in "Pulp Fiction" we should not spend time congratulating ourselves on how smart we are and what a good job we've done, before the task is completed (or words to that effect).
So what I think pointone is that, for a starter, maybe waves also interact mutiplicatively. That's what I'm going to be mucking about with for a while and to that end I've bundled together a few web sites in a Word attachment that I am referencing, and which you, or anyone else, might find useful for whatever you might be thinking of doing with respect to the A/D conundrum.
As an aside, I thought you gave the edgiest response to Ferd's hypothetical and most particularly with respect to your lucid depiction of the difference between "reacting" and "anticipating". It brought tears to my eyes as I fondly remembered the feeling of a fruitless pursuit.
Have a relaxing President's day,
lj (Larry)
PS: The lead link evokes a thought that springs to mind whenever I perceive that my personal puffiness is getting out of hand.