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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Barrick Gold (ABX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zardoz who wrote (1090)	3/30/1999 8:40:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 3558

This isn't applicable: Any linear time-invariant system must incorporate all known variables reguardless of significance. And as such must include all known data." The flow equations are not linear and they have no linear solution. Any model attempts to include all known variables with varying degrees of success. That doesn't mean that the model won't work if it is under-determined. Quantum mechanics is under-determined because it is getting more and more evident that underneath quantum mechanics at the Planck level there is a deterministic system at work and QM only characterizes an intermediate regime of physics between the classical level up to the running of coupling constants through the great desert. You should stop thinking of volume as weight and think of it as activity. My model is renormalizable and so it is volume scale invariant, but like I told you earlier, a demand/supply analysis must include variables for total demand and supply so my model does that. They just aren't very significant. For example, in ABX net total flow bottomed in late '97, but price apparently bottomed almost a year later. Even the crude popular toy measure called OBV shows that. You put all your variables together and you will see that it is well-correlated with price once you handle the data appropriately. That's useless. You need something that has the power to contradict. The variables you've mentioned are categorically disconnected and so a model using them should spew out nonsense. This reminds me of the econometric approach of determining GNP. They add together a long series of economic variables which seem economic or seem categorically contributional, but these models fail when they're needed most. It's those "hidden variables" of the under-determined linear system that effectively mislead, but it is also the fact the variables are not categorical. Some of them are auto-correlated or unexpectedly become non-linear functions of time. That's no way to make a model that needs to work. "TA" won't work. It is a good example of the non-categorical hodge podge variable theory you mentioned. It is coincident and gives you as many bad signals as good. You haven't addressed any of my criticisms and that is the norm for the illiterati on SI. Since you have what I call the "first class sucker" view, it follows. You remind me of my students who knew the course before they took it, but consistently failed exams because they wouldn't take time to learn what the course offered. I never could understand why they enrolled. Why bother? When you have 1/10 the experience that I have, you might want to review what I've said. If you're doing what you claim, you can't be successful. If you could, so could the majority of people doing the same thing. There are droves of them and they ALL get cleaned. That's what I learned 25 years ago and so spent years developing something that is coherent and works.