It is still unclear to me whether you are making predictions or predications.
Results of an incomplete predication method
- Thread starter 294476635
- Start date
It is still unclear to me whether you are making predictions or predications.
Of course, but they said 70%, not "some percentage."
Not saying that, of course. I'm not saying let's observe this phenomenon for years, I'm saying, let them post a little more before crucifying them. Most snake oil salesmen don't offer a 'proof of concept.'
Also, simply because you don't understand what they could be doing, based upon how the non-scientist has tried to explain it, doesn't mean we should conclude beyond all doubt that you are correct in your quantum conclusions.
Again, what he posted is gibberish if you understand even the first thing about quantum entanglement, something I most certainly understand. Just as gibberish as the guy on the street corner, who you don't listen to (do you?) They purposely picked something that's rather technical so that most people wouldn't realize what gibberish it is, that doesn't make it any less so. I don't have a dog in this hunt, I have nothing to gain if they rip you off or if they don't. However they clearly do have something to gain. Which one would you believe?
I just happen to understand what quantum entanglement is and therefore it is abundantly clear to me what they're doing. Since most people wouldn't be expected to know that (which is why they picked it), I'm trying to do you a favor by sharing that. If you want to ignore the advice based on nothing more than the fact that they're offering a "proof of concept" then knock yourself out. By the way, do a quick google search on the term "quantum entanglement". It's really not that complicated and I'm sure that you too will see that referring to it as a method for determining stock direction is complete BS. Five minutes of your time, seriously, check it out.
Again, the crux of my post is...let them post their forecasts before running them off. That said,
Quantum mechanics is not fully understood. Nor can anyone conclude that we know all ways in which the technology may be used. We didn't know all the ways computers would be used when they were first utilized. Individuals come up with novel, unique, interesting ideas that haven't been considered before and even obtain patents for them.
I'm successful at trading, so I don't need your assistance; but I do appreciate the thought. However, I don't believe anyone here is giving money to guys like what we see here on the strength of what's been posted so far. There are no children here with credit cards. Like it or not, we are all freewill adults; you can't be there to protect them from buying things on Amazon, and you likely can't stop them from buying snake oil; nor is it your responsibility to decide what another should or shouldn't buy.
Even so, rather than crucifixion, an altruistic person can simply post their opinion/warning...because so far, that's all it can possibly be.
Marsman was run off before his entertainment value had expired...I'm trying to prevent that sort of crime from happening again.
Quantum mechanics is not fully understood. Nor can anyone conclude that we know all ways in which the technology may be used. We didn't know all the ways computers would be used when they were first utilized. Individuals come up with novel, unique, interesting ideas that haven't been considered before and even obtain patents for them.
I'm successful at trading, so I don't need your assistance; but I do appreciate the thought. However, I don't believe anyone here is giving money to guys like what we see here on the strength of what's been posted so far. There are no children here with credit cards. Like it or not, we are all freewill adults; you can't be there to protect them from buying things on Amazon, and you likely can't stop them from buying snake oil; nor is it your responsibility to decide what another should or shouldn't buy.
Even so, rather than crucifixion, an altruistic person can simply post their opinion/warning...because so far, that's all it can possibly be.
Marsman was run off before his entertainment value had expired...I'm trying to prevent that sort of crime from happening again.
So I'll buy your last sentence. With that in mind, if you read at least the first couple paragraphs of the wikipedia entry on quantum entanglement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement) you'll get much more entertainment value out of someone flailing around trying to explain how two particles acting at a distance on one another, created by data scientist no less, allow one to predict stock market directions day ahead. If they were claiming an edge on HFT they would be operating in the realm of implausible physics but at least the correct interpretation of what you could do with the phenomenon. What they're claiming is pure rubbish, however, and you'll be more entertained if you spend the 5 minutes to get a basic grasp of what they're talking about. Believe me, it's not a case of "we never could have imagined computers would be used this way" kind of thought.
First trade did not work out so well.
A loss of about 70 pips, specifically.
What the OP didn't realize is that I've been doing work with the approaches in quarks and leptons to establish the Schrodinger equation for the appropriate wave functions. I was thus able to cause the Schrodinger function to collapse when observed, thus toggling the OPs prediction from correct to incorrect each time it was viewed through a modified man in the middle attack. The cat's out of the bag, or the box I believe it was.
Last edited: