/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10201509
It isn't.

chartism is pretty good for long term trends but for short term ones it is basically guessing, and really it is always guessing knowing that the other market participants are looking at the same line. Lately, I wonder what is the shape of the "fraud put" as a boundary condition in the fraud algorithms? Behind all of it, some fraudster probably drew a line and said, "Any time it starts to go below this line, use the fraud money to buy equities so that the line becomes absolute support.

>>10201509
It's bunk, but because so many people take it seriously you can still make a good guess on what will happen by asking what they would do, so act as if it's true.

>>10201512
>>10201521
it is striking, because I'm a psychologist, and I get (reasonably) beaten for not being scientific enough.
Yet this stuff is used around the world, taught in colleges and affects economy, not being better than black magic.

>>10201541
I'd like to ask a psychologist, "If you can't understand math, what reason do I have to think you can understand psychology? Isn't likely that you non-maths exist in a groupthink bubble of wrongness?"

>>10201567
Math is the simplest scientific subject. All of the other ones are harder and it is only the Dunning-Krugers who think they can master one of the others while math itself is too hard for them because they don't math and literally can't even.

>>10201567
>If you can't understand math, what reason do I have to think you can understand psychology?
Would you ask a medic if they don't understand math, how would they understand the kidneys?
>Isn't likely that you non-maths exist in a groupthink bubble of wrongness?"
I don't even understand this.
>>10201573
>Math is the simplest scientific subject.
>rest of the post.
Well "El arcón". not only you are wrong, but at the risk of sounding like an "ad hominem", your post sound too much like "I'm the smartest in my high school" fedora-kind of guy.
Psychologist do math, at least the math we can use, and isn't too much because of our study object.

>>10201582
Shut up, retard

>>10201586
>take off silly /x/ related name
>haha, I is anonymoose now.
>u retard
Nice damage control amigo. mis dieses

So, back at the thread topic. How scientific are the economist? it looks like they just use some 10$ words to make up their bullshit.

>>10201592
you don’t do math in psyche ever at any point

>>10201573
Math isn't a scientific subject any more than language is. Science is built on the observation of natural phenomena, and math happens to be tool that is very useful in some cases in describing that phenomena. Math is definitely a necessity in physics, but there's plenty of other scientific fields, like the medical sciences, that don't use it nearly as much. But do feel free to quiz a heart surgeon on some obscure math problem next time he's performing a life-saving surgery.

>>10201600
remember psychohistory?

>>10201518
>chartism is pretty good for long term trends
any emperical evidence for that?

Bill Williams fractals are legit
&
Bollinger Bands are legit

Quantitative Analysis is always good

>>10201674
Every time a chart goes hyperbolic, it crashes.

>>10201652
>Math isn't a scientific subject any more than language is
You're right, it's more fundamental than any scientific subject
It is in no ways a "tool" to "describe" scientific phenomena, it is the fundamental reality underpinning all possible phenomena.

>>10201652
Linguistics is literally a hard science

>>10201706
>once we know the facts, we can predict them
Economy

>>10201509
Technical analysis (as it exists) works because of humans. Trust me, if you had only computers playing the markets, the game would turn into trying to trick other computers with false flags and trading would look more like chess or Go. But as long as humans are the main players, it makes sense. Let me explain to you one of the simplest chart patterns: the double top.

In a market, there are always people, and in an uptrend, you know that there are people who went long at various stages of the trend. These people, who are already at a profit, are only looking for when they should get out without losing their profit. They see the first top and then it goes down: no big deal. Then they see the second top, and then it goes down. What does this say? This means that there are no longer enough people willing to go long to push the market up. And if the market can't go up it will either move sideways or down. Either way, it pays off to sell now. This is literally just predicting what other people are thinking only by measuring how they move the market.

And here I thought studying cohomologies on nonabelian sheaves was more difficult then running brainlet regressions in Stata/EViews/SAS. Thanks for enlightening me /sci/.

>>10202224
Don't cry. only one anon told that math is easy. the other ones didn't said anything but some sciences don't need that much math (medicine) or can't use it (psychology).
the main topic was economy and technical analisys

>>10201592
>everyone who disagrees with me is the same person

>>10201509
>How is this any different to voodoo?

It's worse because no one consistently profits from voodoo, whereas this sh*t is pushed by big players in the financial industry to fool people into thinking they can make money from futures, stocks, FOREX, etc... just to push up the value of the stocks/currencies they already hold.

>>10202307
>some sciences don’t need much math
>medicine is a science
>psychology is science
>implying finance and economics are science
god you people make me livid

>>10201685
how in the heck is the river in ohio related to trading crude oil futures on the tick chart t.absolute brain on the floor brainlet

>>10201509

>How is this any different to voodoo?

It's not. 99% of technical and fundamental analysis is bullshit.

t. successful trend trader

>>10201791
this.

>>10203097
So... are you only 1% successful?

Economists do not use technical analysis.

Economists do not use technical analysis.

Economists do not use technical analysis.

Economists do not use technical analysis.

Economists do not use technical analysis.

Technical analysis is LITERALLY business school brainlets too scared of math for real time series analysis.

Economists DO NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT use technical analysis AT ALL

>>10203615
I had to read over a ton of TA stuff for a whole thing on the Asian financial crisis.

>>10201600
>Stats
>Psychophysics
>Graphs
>Modeling
>Game theory
Just because they didn't hand out worksheets in that one course you took during first year doesn't mean you know what you're talking about STEMlet

What branch of math is the most useful to get into quantitative analysis?
Stats, probability theory, optimization, something else?

>>10201655
neat
>>10204161
>stats
not math
>psychophysics
not science or math, and not even neuroscience
>modeling
what does this even mean?
>graphs
like graph theory? kek
>game theory
this is used in dozens of non-scientific, mathematically unrigorous fields. until you can show me the actual mechanics behind game theory in the real world and biological substrate im just going to ignore it and pay attention to the fizzycysts and mathfags

>>10204170
Bring back my goalposts please. Maybe brush up on your linear algebra while you're at it?

>>10201509
>what is quantitative strategy
>what is systematic execution
>what is backtesting

“crypto bro” charting\TA is a meme (punting on meme triangles/ pennants etc, but it is 100% possible to identify and execute probable trades based on TA if you a) have a system b) follow it c) manage risk d) manage your emotions.

t. fx & equities derivatives trader

>>10201509
It works. It is as simple as that.

>>10201714
It is literally a tool and nothing more, if you discover a maths relation, it is useless until a scientist or engineers finds use for it, otherwise it's a bubble of masturbation

>>10204389
did you just look at the wiki page for mathematics and pick something off it? lmao

>>10201652
>Math isn't a scientific subject any more than language is.
That analogy only goes so far (and as someone else pointed out, linguistics has become almost a hard science in recent years).

Natural language has much more leeway for inconsistency and ambiguity, whereas mathematics has to be as clear and precise as possible in order to produce correct and worthwhile results.

The reason medicine doesn't involve a lot of math is simply because the human body is a very complex system and so an exhaustive analysis of its structures and functions would turn out to be too complicated and virtually useless for any practical purpose. But the more a science progresses, the more mathematical it tends to become. Indeed, a long time ago physics had little to do with mathematics, since Archimedes' works had been forgotten and Aristotelism was rampant, but then Galilei, Newton, and Co. came along and by using math the science of physics advanced greatly. Same happened to chemistry when quantitative laws started to be formulated about mass, volume, and temperature in chemical reactions.

The socail sciences have also noticed that the more mathematical your theories are, the more successful they are likely to be; that's why we have all the cargo cult science that tries very hard to purport itself as mathematical in order to fool the gentiles.

>>10205858
see
>>10201521
>>10201512

http://2occatl.net/splittingofthetimes.html

>>10206909
You three can enjoy being poor together.

Stock market is game theory taken to the limit, it is a post-post-post-post ironic meme. You'd think that of suddenly everybody realized wtf is going on, it would crash, the problem is that everybody had that realization over 60 years ago, and it keeps working until the present day.

the only people who take technical analysis seriously are snake oil salesman trying to market their technique to schizophrenic practitioners.

very basic forms of technical analysis are good to make for strategy decisions, rather than investment decisions (e.g, observing liquidity and fundamentals) if you need to know whether you're safe, but in determining price rises/falls, it's fucking useless (outside of renaissance).

The only technical analysis that has been shown to not have any explanation behind it is Momentum (Jagadeesh & Titman, 1993 or 1994 I think).

On the contrary, OP, no one in serious academia believes it. Only some practitioners to a certain extent.

>>10203615
Real time series analysis master race reporting in

>>10201509
>How is this any different to voodoo?
It's not.
t. economist

>>10208138

>>10204161
>Psychophysics
>He thinks that's rigorous
This is the biggest meme post I've seen in so long. Even my neuroscience friends talk about how bullshit psychology and all it's derivatives are.

>>10204389
Truly spoken like someone who does not know what a vector is.

>>10206946
The fuck is this?
>>10208316
>Psychophysics
May it made some sense time ago, the perceived stimulus does not correspond linearly with the objective stimulus. yet we probabbly have better ways to measure it now

what is this shape called?

It is a meme any pattern that is easily found can't be arbitraged anymore we are finding these constantly and they are inhouse secrets as long as possible

>>10201509
It's hard to discuss these things on /biz/ for several reasons, and the problem is actually quite systemic in the profession:

1. The threads are often filled with people who have no interest in wanting to actually explore any validity to this stuff, by reviewing strategies, through regular threads. They try to sound clever (like many people in this thread), opining on how TA is rubbish, when they have no experience of regular use.

2. Academic Finance, like many other professions, is fulled with Group Think. TA essentially turns Financial Market trading into little more than a videogame. That's distasteful people who like to view it as a "hard" and "proper" profession. You can't just "draw lines on a chart", you HAVE to come up with idiotically convoluted mathematical models because Finance is "HARD".

3. People have it ingrained in them to respond to anything to do with trading as "gambling", this is due to what they've been told by authority figures, and hearing about the statistics of how many new traders fail. Fact is though, failure is prevalent everywhere, not just in trading. Most businesses (Trading is a Speculative based business) fail. People have varying degrees of ability at certain tasks, everyone can't be in the top 10% of every endeavour they try at. How people somehow forget this, when it comes to trading, astonishes me.

What really irritates me is the criticism of Technical Analysis not being "proven", in terms of Academic study. It takes time to learn Proofs from Discrete Mathematics, it takes time to learn about all the different Statistical tests that can be done on Data. It's also very difficult to gather Data, because in order to give TA a fair analysis, you must account for Multiple Time Frames, and I don't know if it's even possible to Statistical tests on that kind of Data.

Practitioners do not often have the time needed to become PhD level mathematicians, they're out there fucking trading, and working their craft.

>>10208318
He interprets "math" to be anything that involves numbers i.e. addition or subtraction.