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 : TA-Quotes Plus -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Jagow who wrote (7362)	10/24/1998 2:15:00 PM
From: bdog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11149

Bob, dude! You got the after burners on. A cyber sink for you! I will try to incorporate this stuff as soon as I tap into your virtual trust fund to buy myself a brain capable of deciphering your work... you da man... bdog

To: Bob Jagow who wrote (7362)	10/25/1998 2:03:00 AM
From: MechanicalMethod	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11149

Bob . . Is this Quotes Plus programing language Visual Basic by any chance? I may have to learn VB and want to know if I should be paying attention. . Osci

To: Bob Jagow who wrote (7362)	10/25/1998 2:17:00 AM
From: Craig DeHaan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11149

Bob, More of a miracle of birth over previous near still born status. I'm illuminating a 3'x4' likeness of you in the believe it or not scan library annex. Another award execution. Only two questions. How did you derive the a variable formulations? I can't find anything on 'A to Z' relating to it in their y=a+bx expression series and "a:= (SxxSy -SxSxy)/div;" seems to be the key to the plot value mystery before applying the slope for tsf. I follow the div and b variables as posted in your previous LinReg Slope formulas at Brooke's place. And nailing the TSF and LRS with one lrflag bullet is another example of a classic fewest moving parts ethic (a minor typo there at if lrflag != 0 then lrfalg:= 1;). The other problem I have in following along is after building the summation variables from 'first' to '-N' stepping and then back down in the test loops to get the calc for delta for current bar to evaluate final LR1 and LR2 values; intuitively it seems the i:= bar -N; should be just i:=-N* as all the previous loop sums started at 'first' originally. And is it possible to reduce them back to first with just one differential added to the previous sums without incrementally stepping them backward? Again, highly economical to calc everything only once for p* and then back it down for the final value, but I get lost specifically on the differential expression variable i. I haven't incorporated integral backtesting in many scans and that's where the logic is fuzziest. I'll run test batteries for MS comp tomorrow and by then the questions will probably resolve themselves. Now do you think you can convince Gary to include TSF and LRS as standard functions in R2.01? You've done all the heavy lifting for his staff. Thanks again. Craig