Trading Catechism

More math. There is no way around it. Notice that we are slowly creeping up on Graduate level mathematics, but this is all still undergraduate mathematics at a normal university. These videos actually give you good intuition.

YOU MUST UNDERSTAND Stokes theorem and Green's theorems in order to build advanced models. The videos are here

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/mu...ons/stokes-theorem/v/stokes-theorem-intuition

but it helps quite a bit to understand the relation between Stokes theorem and Green's theorems:


 
Sorry to back-track to a sidebar from page 2...

eurusdzn said:
What is symbol in my retail IB account to buy the spread "borrowing at FF and lending Prime" ?
Thanks.
More...

volpunter said:
I tell you precisely what it is: buying NZDUSD, AUDUSD and selling EURNZD, EURAUD.
More...

Question 1:
Would you also use a basis swap (USD denominated floating interest rate swap) or a spread trade in futures (Fed Funds vs. 10-years)?

Question 2:
I'm trying to improve my understanding of the interrelations of International Interest Rates... Can you explain your premise for using the currencies?
 
Last edited:
GlobalRaider said:
Sorry to back-track to a sidebar from page 2...





Question 1:
Would you also use a basis swap (USD denominated floating interest rate swap) or a spread trade in futures (Fed Funds vs. 10-years)?

Question 2:
I'm trying to improve my understanding of the interrelations of International Interest Rates... Can you explain your premise for using the currencies?
More...
The position is easy to dissect. Short 2 USD and EUR, and Long 2 AUD and NZD.

Borrow cheap lend dear. You can find out the interest rates around the world as I posted here:

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index.php?threads/black-every-day.121509/page-26#post-4204771

Needless to say, there is at least three more factors that go into these sorts of spreads, IRs differentials being only one of them. Even here, the ratios probably need to be tweeked even if you felt comfortable with the position.
 
How the dividends play out over time. In SPX points:

chart.jpeg
 
I think the reason many of us have problems trading markets is that although we are good at reasoning and logic, we are not good at introducing beliefs into logic. There is at least one trader of each of these types. The "market" as a whole is a kaleidoscope of regimes of reasoners. Note how dangerous the Regular reasoner is:

471abc0dbbd9c22bfe9deffcbd2ddd3b.png

  • Inaccurate reasoner:[1][2][3][4] An inaccurate reasoner believes at least one false proposition.
2bbb8a8c973ba8220bf74969b4c34bbe.png

  • Conceited reasoner:[1][4] A conceited reasoner believes his or her beliefs are never inaccurate.
d6e08d0aeb84a7cca0edb6018a1df71e.png

or
eefd06ca9418ea97fa4bc8352cb152a9.png

A conceited reasoner with rationality of at least type 1 (see below) will necessarily lapse into inaccuracy.
  • Consistent reasoner:[1][2][3][4] A consistent reasoner never simultaneously believes a proposition and its negation. (modal axiom D)
9a29e575106be3d5d21d0fc3758b8f00.png

or
262959ee224e84f8835a49508381bd1e.png

  • Normal reasoner:[1][2][3][4] A normal reasoner is one who, while believing p, also believes he or she believes p (modal axiom 4).
1a799d69ac9d631787cd1a9201289734.png

  • Peculiar reasoner:[1][4] A peculiar reasoner believes proposition p while also believing he or she does not believe p. Although a peculiar reasoner may seem like a strange psychological phenomenon (see Moore's paradox), a peculiar reasoner is necessarily inaccurate but not necessarily inconsistent.
32b2a986c7f40782f4ee172da8c3d8f8.png

  • Regular reasoner:[1][2][3][4] A regular reasoner is one who, while believing
    b66c84ff4babc1c358e6e5c7df6d1ca3.png
    , also believes
    6e5a0c8b3c5b9b76c2ea3c4ee4e1fdb9.png
    .
2160601364fefdc462f0ab8f0a4fda74.png

  • Reflexive reasoner:[1][4] A reflexive reasoner is one for whom every proposition p has some proposition q such that the reasoner believes
    a11add6b436ab71303b39288c18fea66.png
    .
bf066eba10cdd436e2191253f6d34d58.png

If a reflexive reasoner of type 4 [see below] believes
40817a1a296d6b933857a87ac4dfda08.png
, he or she will believe p. This is a parallelism of Löb's theorem for reasoners.
  • Unstable reasoner:[1][4] An unstable reasoner is one who believes that he or she believes some proposition, but in fact does not believe it. This is just as strange a psychological phenomenon as peculiarity; however, an unstable reasoner is not necessarily inconsistent.
f8453e0af1c4ad43ef7ab07ab41001e9.png

  • Stable reasoner:[1][4] A stable reasoner is not unstable. That is, for every p, if he or she believes Bp then he or she believes p. Note that stability is the converse of normality. We will say that a reasoner believes he or she is stable if for every proposition p, he or she believes BBp→Bp (believing: "If I should ever believe that I believe p, then I really will believe p").
d9a117b15327cdbcf331f4501d84c45c.png

  • Modest reasoner:[1][4] A modest reasoner is one for whom every believed proposition p,
    40817a1a296d6b933857a87ac4dfda08.png
    only if he or she believes p. A modest reasoner never believes Bp→p unless he or she believes p. Any reflexive reasoner of type 4 is modest. (Löb's Theorem)
14723876965c64a74d131b828ae94560.png

  • Queer reasoner:[4] A queer reasoner is of type G and believes he or she is inconsistent—but is wrong in this belief.
  • Timid reasoner:[4] A timid reasoner does not believe p [is "afraid to" believe p] if he or she believes
    64fd71020e99273ee0e83def503103b2.png


ℬx
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top