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.

Technology Stocks : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lnkennedy who wrote (5167)	2/7/1999 8:10:00 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

Dear lnkennedy, I believe the most salient feature of the article was the Monte Carlo simulation of charts. Without understanding the psychology of the market, the chart analyst may be able to make profitable short term predictions but anything beyond a few days requires some actual understanding of the underlying principles of the market. Unlike you, I did not not find the article of use. <How about; when there is a crisis of confidence the probability of crisis increases.> Duh, Charles Mackay has an entirely more useful analysis in his "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds." Lets leave Mandebrot to the kuhl picture biz. Regards, Ray

To: lnkennedy who wrote (5167)	2/7/1999 8:29:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 29970

He's wrong. I can take his formalism and demonstrate why. Reminds me of chaos theory, the only valid conclusion it has is that some systems evolve mechanically to a chaotic state. So what? No effective decision procedure exists to tell you when a system will go chaotic. It is a posteriori. The equivalent is the isomorphism that exists between fuzzy and two valued logics. Why bother with fuzzy? It is humorous that fuzzy decision systems enable stable systems to become chaotic. The only good stock market model is built on quantum states of money flow market dynamics and the Schrodinger-Focker-Planck stochastic diffusion equation relating the states. There is no isomorphism between that and fractals. Along the fuzzy chaos boundary you have fractal series which can be transformed into all natural phenomena. Now what was he saying about uniqueness? I wonder why Scientific American dredges up someone to waltz around with fractured ideas when great physics and mathematics goes ignored. Few appreciate the astounding stuff that's been done in the last 5 years, but I assure you it is a mini-revolution about the way we look at the universe. It goes unnoticed because the press is filled with illiterates.