Kudos to MMs

Nothing to do. Sep '11 1300 Call gaining nice deltas. A close soundly above 1320 is the first hurdle to the first target of 1342. The question is, should we add at 1320? The answer is almost certainly yes, but let's see how undervalued FV says we are when we get there.
 
Quote from kinggyppo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_program
More...
I don't know if you just posted that randomly, but if you are suggesting that what I am attempting impossible due Godel's first theorem, I disagree. As pointed out by Wittgenstein, we can continue to build languages so that a problem becomes amenable in this FAS (Formal Axiomatic System) where it may be impossible to prove in some subset. A really beautiful example of this is the story of how Grothendieck invented etale cohomology to prove the Weil Conjectures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Étale_cohomology

Another is adding the Axiom of Choice to set theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice

Note in the article above statements like:

"...Grothendieck's use of these universes (whose existence cannot be proved in ZFC)..."

In any event, if true, it would be easier to map attempting a "FV" of SPX to the Halting Problem which is computer science version of Godel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Some would argue that "Technical Analysis" is this "language".

People horribly misunderstand Godel. In fact, it can be argued that much of the beauty of mathematics is a consequence of Godel's first theorem.
 
A close above 1320 is almost a certainty. We are in good shape to test 1342, where we will decide what to do, take profit or let it ride to 1372.
 
Quote from nitro:

I don't know if you just posted that randomly, but if you are suggesting that what I am attempting impossible due Godel's first theorem, I disagree. As pointed out by Wittgenstein, we can continue to build languages so that a problem becomes amenable in this FAS (Formal Axiomatic System) where it may be impossible to prove in some subset. A really beautiful example of this is the story of how Grothendieck invented etale cohomology to prove the Weil Conjectures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Étale_cohomology

Another is adding the Axiom of Choice to set theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice

Note in the article above statements like:

"...Grothendieck's use of these universes (whose existence cannot be proved in ZFC)..."

In any event, if true, it would be easier to map attempting a "FV" of SPX to the Halting Problem which is computer science version of Godel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

Some would argue that "Technical Analysis" is this "language".

People horribly misunderstand Godel. In fact, it can be argued that much of the beauty of mathematics is a consequence of Godel's first theorem.
More...

I was referring to your use of the word " confident" , you should try to quantify that. I think what you are doing is interesting; let's say your fair value is correct at 1370, you are assuming that the market or its participants will eventually come to the same conclusion. That is the big assumption. This is somewhat similar to what fundamental analysts do, albeit rather poorly. Hypothetically, could you explain your rational for this calculation to a savvy investor and also break it down to a child. Carry on and good trading Nitro. By the way has NLTRO left for good, someone needs to keep you humble!:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top