/biz/ - Business & Finance

false

>>29864812
Your false is false,and your brain is infinitely small

>>29863934
>WHICH ONES BETTER
one is not "better", they are different, and "better at" different things.
-A computer is good at being faster than a human, so it can react to information faster than humans can perceive it.
-Humans are better at synthesizing multiple lines of conflicting and unrelated evidence (because we haven't built computers that work like our brains do yet)
etc.
>How could an irrational trading bot understand things like resistance at whole numbers?
This is extremely naive... It would be very easy to build a model that considers this (to account for irrational humans) and weights its predictions accordingly.
There is more to say but the theme is the questions are retarded and simplistic, and you should think about things

>>29864812
Its true. The tangent line at 0 degrees and 180 degrees is perpendicular to x=0

>>29865060
>>29865127
wut, can you draw the 2 right-angles on that image?

>>29865543
You're likely thinking too big, anon

>>29865543
Literal caveman brain at work here

>>29863934
True. At the point where the curve meets the line it is perfectly 90 deg

Depends if its a proper semi circle or not.
But the diameter will be at right angles with the circumference at the part where they connect

>>29863934
A robot cannot predict the irrational acts of a single man, but a bot can look at trends from big groups of irrational people and find patterns in the irrationality

>>29865127
that's true, but the tangent isn't part of the shape.

in reality: .99999 != 1, so false
In practice: .99999 = 1, so true
in real life: OP is just baiting, no homework would ask a question like this.

>>29863934
True, it has thousands of right angles since it is a raster image.

>>29865790
so then its false

lol this boi still eats this shit
so stupid to check this trashtalk about bots and algo’s that you made here
smart sharks wait for bot ocean presale finish and trade with bots on dex and cex launch
>as u got I am smart and not a sucker like this niggers

All replies in this thread are stupid
The most 200 IQ is the following:
SOMETIME IT GO DOWN SOMETEEM IT GOOOO AAPP BUURRRR I CAN ONLEE BUY NEVER SELL BURRR DURRR

>>29865786
Retard

>>29865885
>This shape has two right-angles
Is equivalent to x >= 2, which is true
>This shape has exactly two right-angles
Is equivalent to x == 2

True, zoom in further

>>29865687
>t. Big brain anon
The correct answer is that there isn't enough information to answer the question because the diagram is not labeled and we don't know what we're looking at

>>29866082
Wait fuck
you're right it's 90 degrees exactly

>>29866292
it is clearly meant to be the diameter of a circle

>>29865127
>if you draw extra lines then you can create right angles
brianlet

oh shit it's staked, I forgot, I'm done for lmao
good I didn’t go for this rubbish they tried to shill on /biz/ today
my portfolio with yvs and their farm system. top gem on yield market with modern terms

>>29866321
>"clearly"

>>29863934
by learning that the last 100 times it hit those numbers it slowed down

>>29865127
If the line is perpendicular at the intercept of a tangent

False. Assuming that's a perfect semicircle, the angles approach 90 degrees as you zoom in infinitely. A right angle is exactly 90 degrees.

>>29866463
You failed public school didn't ya

>>29866997
if they are not right angles, then what angles are they?

>>29863934
yes, mathematical/systematic/automated trading is superior to human trading.

>>29867173
There's no numerical answer, they just get infinitely close to 90. It's like asking how many sides a circle has, it approaches infinity.

>>29867173
>>29867332
To add, it's also more of a thought experiment than an actual question since an angle is defined by two lines/rays, if I remember correctly

>>29863934
Approaching 90 degrees is not the same as 90 degrees. False.

>>29865786
0.99999 does not equal 1 retard, the limit as the number of decimal places approaches infinity converges to 1.
>no homework would ask a question like that
it's a question designed to make you think abstractly, it sounds like you never have
>>29866391
if you consider an infinitesimal neighbourhood about the internal corners you approach a right angle. If you use the inscribed angle theorem you can find infinite right angles. the question doesn't tell you to make any particular restrictions. the teacher probably wants to see if their students aren't just bots who only know how to do colour by numbers.

>>29867581
but it is 90 degrees anon

>>29867581
You're wrong but let's say that was true and it was 89.999, if something was 89.999 degrees in reality people would have no problems calling it a right angle. Nothing is perfectly 90.0000000000000000000000 degrees in the real world yet people accept that things are at right angles everyday.

true

humans have higher potential UNTIL we make general intelligence AI
until then, RAT.

>>29868107

.999 repeating is exactly equal to one, retard.

>>29867173
89.999999999999999........

>>29868319
Still not 90 degrees. More like 89.99999999999999999999999999999999999 degrees.

>>29867051
I austically argued with teachers when they were wrong or gave ambiguous questions. I then went on to excel at technical matters because I define problems carefully and I don't make assumptions.

But please, by all means, eyeball a diagram and make "good-enough" guesses, that's how mathematics works I guess.

>>29869606
89.99999999 REPEATING retard, focus on the REPEATING part. 0.999999999999 REPEATING is equal to 1

>>29863934
Speed. If you can think faster than a computer.

That and humans are social, for every illogical action you take, 10 others follow blindly

>>29868107
>the teacher probably wants to see if their students aren't just bots
teachers don't do that anymore. i don't think they're even allowed to if they were so inclined.
but yes, there are two right angles in that picture

>>29869666
>>29869519
You're implying that the degree is an infinite number of decimally-placed nines. Going by the limitations of pixels alone it is not equivalent to .9 repeating.

> Do you think mathematic trading is superior to human instinct trading?
No, because ultimately markets are driven by emotion and not mathematics, and humans don't act rationally.

>>29865127
>yeh bro construct an line that matches the definition, there bro I made 2 90 degree angles
Not part of the shape faggot.

>>29863934
The limit drives to 90°, no?

>>29869778
Long term markets approach rational. Which is why algos have taken over and had superior returns until every faggot got one

>>29869888
nice
>>29869606
show me something that is exactly 90 degrees then, otherwise you are just a contrarian faggot "well ackshully nothing is a right angle"

>>29869778
>completely ignores the existence of trading algorithms based on simple mathematics

>>29869778
market emotion is driven by shitty math

>>29869666
lmao love it when retards call other people retards

>>29868319
Name two specifics point with a 90 degree angle between them
People are drawing tangent lines on the exact point on the Y-axis they're tryingnto draw an angle between
That's called a 0 degree angle, geniuses because it's the same fucking point

>>29863934
The term 'mathematic' trading is wrong anon, because you can draw shapes with certain equations and get meme lines. What you mean is PROBABILISTIC approach. Yes, you can better evaluate trades, resulting in better returns. It's a very methodical approach and quite successful, you just have to apply yourself.

The right angle of an inscribed triangle will always be on the curved line, right? so, the corners of the circle's bisection can approach but never reach 90.

>>29864812
correct, fuck everyone else and their mental masturbation

There is NO right angles, because technically/theoretically there is only one POINT On the circle that would have a tangent that is 90 degrees to the radius. BUT the tangent is NOT part of the circle! The curved line is the circle, and there is no “angle” between a line and a point, only a line and another line (which in this case is the imaginary second line of a tangent)

>>29870030
>thinks 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/3
Moron.

>>29869666
This is true, but x/2^n will never equal zero. That’s more akin to what we’re seeing here with the theoretical angle of a curved line and a straight line.

>>29869666
1>0.9999999999999999999

They are not equal. Yes, in real life we round and treat them the same because who gives a shit but in an academic setting it's important to make the distinction

>>29871667

0.999.... (repeating) is mathematically equal to 1.

>>29871758
You're right, I was being retarded

>>29871758
>muh university says .9999 repeating = 1 because 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 3/3 = 1
The math itself is a blunt instrument which is unable to grasp the obvious which .999 repeating is in fact not 1.

>>29865543
>>29864812

>>29872020
According to this thread that would be six right triangles which would still be false.

>>29871993

Ok, then tell me the distance between 0.999... repeating and 1.

>>29865682
Not necessarily. Tangent there is undefined since it is a sharp corner.

>>29872020
by thaylt logic everything would have 2 right-angles

>>29863934
>tfw when you realize this question is tailormade for basketball americans and they still won't understand it

>>29872190
unironically use the identity property

>>29863934
Falselets, when will they learn

>>29868319
No, the tangent of the circle is undefined at the sharp corner. If it were a complete circle and the chord shown passed through the center of the circle, then your argument would be valid because the dot product of the chord and the tangent line of the circle that connects with the chord would be 1. But in this case the tangent is undefined because of the sharp corner and so the only answer would be that the angle approaches 90 degrees as the distance from the chord approaches 0.

>>29872190
0.0...1

Dipshit.

>>29870021
> Long term markets approach rational.
Eh, I don't think this is a sufficient reason. If your time horizon is 300 years like an endowment fund, your strategy will be completely different from a retiree who is only looking to keep it for 30 years, which will be completely different from a broke 20-year old who doesn't have anything worth saving to begin with. If you take the traditional advice of dumping into a broad-market fund like $VTSAX for that sweet sweet 5% YoY returns, you're probably not going to make it from trading alone.
>>29870124
Completely ignoring the fact that algos can trade thousands of times faster than any human and the real value being in volume, algos aren't divinely created to always make money in every situation. They are designed with specific goals for specific contexts. Some will be entirely based on mathematical models, some will have Twitterbots for some kind of emotional gauge, some will scan news feeds. Some will be based on velocity, or performance relative to other investments, or a million other given inputs and desired outputs. And who is making the decisions about which inputs and which outputs are important? People, making decisions based on their particular set of subjective values. GME wasn't based on math. The housing crisis wasn't based on math. The success of Amazon out of the hundreds of other dotcom companies wasn't based on math.

maths is a spook

.99999999999 repeating times infinity is approaching 0

1 times infinity is 1.

1 does not equal 0.

Sorry, mathlets. Nice "degrees".

>>29863934
You can't just look at a shape and assume it's a perfect semi-circle.

nice so I guess /biz/ has its own .999....=/=1 threads.

>>29872509

>0.0... 1

Except there can't be a 1 at the end, since there will never be an end to the zeros.

Dumbfuck.

>>29870982
resources for probabilistic approach to trading? how would you even assess the underlying distribution?

>>29872758
Sorry meant *power of infinity.

>>29872766
based and precisionpilled

>>29867173
Acute

>>29872842
>a number at the end of an infinite series doesn't exist!
Thinking power = 0

>>29872974
The grade school logic is that a circle is 360 degrees. Divided by two with a semi-circle is 180 degrees implying the two angles are 90 degrees each. Which isn't perfect logical because the degree angle comes from the center in that scenario.

>>29872020
That perpendicular line isn't a part of the shape though.

>>29872842
what he should have said is that the difference is 1- 0.9 repeating. Now its your turn. Does that equal zero dumbfuck?

>>29863934
humans are predictably irrational

>>29873132

yes, 1 minus a number mathematically equal to 1 would be zero. Stay out of grown folks' business.

>>29873345
The identity is an aspect of laziness and efficiency not reality.

>>29871993
Between every pair of distinct real numbers there exists a rational and irrational number. Name a rational number between .999... and 1.

>>29863934

>>29873132
let x = 0.9999999999.....
10x = 9.99999999999.....
10x - 1x = 9.999999999.... - 0.999999999....
9x = 9
x = 1
1-x = y
1-1 = y
0 = y

>>29873540
>Between every pair of distinct real numbers there exists a rational and irrational number.
Word phrases to prove an identity is not proof.

>>29873655
There would be a difference of 0.000....9 with the 10x.

>>29873766
Dont waste your time. Reddit mathematicians didnt go past precalc.

>>29869666
30.33 repeating of course