Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (1718)	4/5/2001 10:58:42 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 24758

I know the various ways meant when different groups use that term. There exists a weak isomorphism between the notions used by traders and those used by mathematicians. Can "notions" be made adequately rigorous to show this isomorphism? In particular, the formal isomorphism can be constructed, but some formula modifications have to be introduced without losing meaning similarity at the cost of losing syntactic isomorphism. We can't use the algebra in the structure of the notion used by traders to derive the notion used by mathematicians, but we can find a common ground where the both sides would agree verbally that that is what they meant. That's what I attempted to state in my previous post. "Fluctuation" and "amplitude" are both sufficiently vague so that each interpretation can be understood by the other, but they can both be made rigorous independently relative to the model used in both camps. Proof: we both understand the ways volatility is used. The intuitive notion I gave was all there really is in the word, "volatility". I implied it can't be made rigorous because when one tries, either one does so abstractly with untoward results or one tries to capture the nature of varying data in expressions which again have untoward or unstable results.