Right! Yeah. FWIW, there are probably a few people doing this kind of research as it applies to understanding market dynamics. That is, how some of the modern mathematical tools that have been developed in an attempt to explain our toughest problems like the Reimann Hyp and GUTs are being applied to Phynance, at places like Rentec and Citadel, and certainly many at Universities. I don't even have the qualifications to walk in the door - just enough understanding to know that it makes sense to talk about it in these terms. nitro
I guess Nitro must know this book well. Q http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/15...7?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance Potential users often get the impression that jump and Lévy processes are beyond their reach.Financial Modelling with Jump Processes shows that this is not so. It provides a self-contained overview of the theoretical, numerical, and empirical aspects involved in using jump processes in financial modelling, and does so in terms within the grasp of nonspecialists. The introduction of new mathematical tools is motivated by its use in the modelling process, and precise mathematical statements of results are accompanied by intuitive explanations. UQ
No, The book I wish I knew inside out is: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...bs_b_2_1/002-8215686-0829648?v=glance&s=books although the book you link to looks interesting. nitro
Right. No need trying to fit noncommutative junk or jump-like nonsense to markets. This is only good for market-clowns impersonating mathematicians before a kindergarten public. No good for anything else. It suffices to extract money from markets. Only the truly nimble can. nononsense
It's not as hard as you think. This type of behavior can be quantified, identified and predicted. Now, keep sweating and clicking away as my formulas slowly steal all your money.
Wow amazing, I'm switching to staring at charts and drawing lines all day. If I wasn't so lazy I'd code up some stuff to scan my tick database and find how many times that pattern happened and didn't turn out the way it did in your screenshot. I'll be convinced when you can provide some real numbers as to how many times this pattern goes the way you think it will.