Making JH' SCT and all his material alive

Sprout said:
As for the rdbms tables. Copy those by hand so that you mentally confront each element. Since you like to handdraw, use different colors. The tables colors do mean something and have associations so keep that part consistent.
More...

While doing so, a coloring issue surged. Here it is :

color issue on Modrian& MoveRev tables.png


NB : Ignore the interrogations points on Modrian Table.

As seen with the black rays starting from Modrian table and pointing to the Move Reversals one, some colors are obvious to establish a correspondance from a table to the other one.

But what about the two remaining columns on the Modrian Table that I did not put any ray from, which are the Down Row SET B (light blue, and lets temporarily call it the DRSetB) and the down row SET C (dark blue, and let's say for now it's the DRSetC) ? I assume the DRSetB column is to be linked with the Move reversals' Set B's Down row, and the DRSetC is to be linked with the Move reversals' Set C's Down row. But as the color are not corresponding + I don't see any differenciation as for the color of the Move Rev table's Set B and C's down rows, it's problematic, as above all this, their color is not on the Modrian Table.
But it's not time for assuming, but to know.
So, please can you help me with fixing this so that I can reproduce authentically and clearly this Move reversals Table ?
 
WchPl said:
View attachment 198626




+



=

View attachment 198627

NB : I took here the liberty to insert the FTT label inside the short container, to stick to the "each pt1 of any trend is inside the prior one"; and I also changed the color of the Pt1 of the long container which is on the original image in red, to green, to stick to the color of the long container.




View attachment 198628

View attachment 198629




View attachment 198630



View attachment 198631





View attachment 198632

View attachment 198633


More posts are coming ...
More...



Yes, you have it

The overlays (last two) are actually overlaid.

Currently you have them arranged as tiles.

With the overlay, one can slide it on the horizontal axis and match the price line intersection at any point of the underlying ‘continue’ chart.

The exercise is to show ‘change’ is change and can come at any time.

The notion that b2b2r2b and r2r2b2r must complete on the timeframe you are observing can become a sticking point at the level of awareness shown on your general level of annotations.

It’s true on another level of awareness - that level requires one to collapse different fractals and do what’s known as ‘fractal jumping.’

The truth to the above statements lies in developing differentiation with rdbms.
 
Last edited:
WchPl said:
While doing so, a coloring issue surged. Here it is :

View attachment 198634

NB : Ignore the interrogations points on Modrian Table.

As seen with the black rays starting from Modrian table and pointing to the Move Reversals one, some colors are obvious to establish a correspondance from a table to the other one.

But what about the two remaining columns on the Modrian Table that I did not put any ray from, which are the Down Row SET B (light blue, and lets temporarily call it the DRSetB) and the down row SET C (dark blue, and let's say for now it's the DRSetC) ? I assume the DRSetB column is to be linked with the Move reversals' Set B's Down row, and the DRSetC is to be linked with the Move reversals' Set C's Down row. But as the color are not corresponding + I don't see any differenciation as for the color of the Move Rev table's Set B and C's down rows, it's problematic, as above all this, their color is not on the Modrian Table.
But it's not time for assuming, but to know.
So, please can you help me with fixing this so that I can reproduce authentically and clearly this Move reversals Table ?
More...


You currently have 16 out of 16 cells that match in structure, 12 of 16 cells in color.

Use logic to discern the coloring on the 4 cells that are not matching either - is right or is wrong.

What’s more likely?
 
WchPl said:
While doing so, a coloring issue surged. Here it is :

View attachment 198634

NB : Ignore the interrogations points on Modrian Table.

As seen with the black rays starting from Modrian table and pointing to the Move Reversals one, some colors are obvious to establish a correspondance from a table to the other one.

But what about the two remaining columns on the Modrian Table that I did not put any ray from, which are the Down Row SET B (light blue, and lets temporarily call it the DRSetB) and the down row SET C (dark blue, and let's say for now it's the DRSetC) ? I assume the DRSetB column is to be linked with the Move reversals' Set B's Down row, and the DRSetC is to be linked with the Move reversals' Set C's Down row. But as the color are not corresponding + I don't see any differenciation as for the color of the Move Rev table's Set B and C's down rows, it's problematic, as above all this, their color is not on the Modrian Table.
But it's not time for assuming, but to know.
So, please can you help me with fixing this so that I can reproduce authentically and clearly this Move reversals Table ?
More...

Instead of inventing more language. Refer to the top row as FS and bottom row as Routine. Sets A, B are incomplete trends and C, D are complete trends.
 
Sprout said:
The notion that b2b2r2b and r2r2b2r must complete on the timeframe you are observing is erroneous at the level of awareness shown on your general level of annotations.

It’s true on another level of awareness - that level requires one to collapse different fractals and do what’s known as ‘fractal jumping.’

The truth to the above statements lies in developing differentiation with rdbms.
More...

I love this
 
Sprout said:
You currently have 16 out of 16 cells that match in structure, 12 of 16 cells in color.

Use logic to discern the coloring on the 4 cells that are not matching either - is right or is wrong.
More...

This looses me a bit.

"You have 16 out of 16 cells that match in structure" -> starting from scratch, I must find something that sticks to the number 16. What does correspond to 16 ? I'd say here if on Modrian table I consider each differently colored top row zone so each FS, I'd say there are 4 cells above, and then I come to 8 cells adding Routine row.

If I do the same with Move Reversal table, the horizontal blank row between each top and bottom diffrently colored zone take me to 8 new cells, so it would end merging it all, with 16 cells.

I must dissect things this way cause currently I don't get it with those tables.

Then you talk about 12 and 4 cells, 4 cells that do not have color. I didn't even had noticed that. I was just rehanddrawing the table... The 4 cells in question are then Ba Band pass, PP3, PP4, PP4.

Is that the right beginning to understand what you said ?

Thinking about it while waiting for some answer ;)
 
WchPl said:
This looses me a bit.

"You have 16 out of 16 cells that match in structure" -> starting from scratch, I must find something that sticks to the number 16. What does correspond to 16 ? I'd say here if on Modrian table I consider each differently colored top row zone so each FS, I'd say there are 4 cells above, and then I come to 8 cells adding Routine row.

If I do the same with Move Reversal table, the horizontal blank row between each top and bottom diffrently colored zone take me to 8 new cells, so it would end merging it all, with 16 cells.

I must dissect things this way cause currently I don't get it with those tables.

- On the right track...



Then you talk about 12 and 4 cells, 4 cells that do not have color. I didn't even had noticed that.


- That’s Not an accurate quote. This is something you invented.



I was just rehanddrawing the table... The 4 cells in question are then Ba Band pass, PP3, PP4, PP4.

Is that the right beginning to understand what you said ?

Thinking about it while waiting for some answer ;)
More...

Comments within quoted text.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top