Simply put ; helpful points written. Green tea , red apples & leg of lamb have been medicaly proven better with out a bunch of complex junk eaten with them. ===== Harrytrader & Milton Friedman made an important point in favor of the private sector. However with trees planted, skilled government, skilled private sector, & add rain , desert can bloom like a rose.
just realised I forgot an essential part : "What do we mean by complexity and its opposite, simplicity? It would take a great many concepts, a great many quantities to capture all the various meanings implicit in our use of the word complexity. But there is one concept - what I call effective complexity - that represents most closely what we usually mean in everyday conversation and also in scientific discourse when we use the word. A non-technical definition of effective complexity would be the length of a highly compressed description of the regularities of the entity under consideration. Compression - the elimination of redundancy - is very important; otherwise the length of the message would be of very little concern to us."
See also Re: Macro-Evolutionary Theory is filled with holes http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=378284#post378284 I've made both Bio and Petroleum Engineering schools so I had a deep cursus with Evolutionary Theory from Embriology to Genetics and Geo-techtonics (creation of planet Earth) . The problem is not really there. The problem is that Evolutionary Theory is not enough to explain the probability of appearance of life of even the most ridiculous organism that is a virus with only 40 strings in ARN. So there should be something else and this something can involve a more deterministic process than pure randomness of Evolution and if one believe Wolfram http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_7.html "One of the most esteemed documents of modern paleontology is Stephen Jay Gould's doctoral thesis on shells. According to Gould, the fact that there are thousands of potential shell shapes in the world, but only a half dozen actual shell forms, is evidence of natural selection. Not so, says Wolfram. He's discovered a mathematical error in Gould's argument, and that, in fact, there are only six possible shell shapes, and all of them exist in the world. In other words, you don't need natural selection to pare down evolution to a few robust forms. Rather, organisms evolve outward to fill all the possible forms available to them by the rules of cellular automata. Complexity is destinyâand Darwin becomes a footnote. "I've come to believe," says Wolfram, "that natural selection is not all that important." The more sciences he probes, the more Wolfram senses a deeper patternâan underlying force that defines not only the cosmos but living things as well: "Biologists," he says, "have never been able to really explain how things get made, how they develop, and where complicated forms come from. This is my answer. " He points at the shell, "This mollusk is essentially running a biological software program. That program appears to be very complex. But once you understand it, it's actually very simple." It's very similar to Stock Market problematic in fact where official theory pretends that Randomness of multiple agents which compete among them - Evolutionary theory - dictates Market Behavior whereas I affirm, through my model that it is an illusion, that there is a deterministic process that is not due to the multiple agents (I mean the MAJORITY of course that there are SOME agents that makes the market behaves like it behaves but it is not those officially theory focus upon). And to explain that I use in fact a genetic metaphore see Plectics: "The study of simplicity and complexity" http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24752&perpage=6&pagenumber=3 and "Information packing, transcription and alternative splicing" http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24752 P.S.: nevetheless my model is not based on GENETIC MODELLING - it is based on ECONOMIC MODELLING - so it is only ressemblance of form with genetic, that is to say a sort of meta-fractality in modelisation.
bungrider, thank you so much for telling us this. For those of you not fully conversant with trends, you can get wise reading the "Trendiness of Days - assigning a value" thread. Good trends to you all, nononsense
Gee, Harry, how do you come up with all this stuff all the time? Measuring band to cup size of you brain (http://www.pumpstation.com/frmBraSize-1.cfm) you must have a 12-ZZZ (12-True-Brain - ZZZ-Show-Brain). I meant to express your ratio of own-invented (12) stuff to copy-&-pasted (ZZZ) noise. (edited: if you consider your own stuff big, imagine how big the c&p stuff appears to me ) But still, I am truly, honestly and constantly surprised about all this information and other factoids (sic!) you dig out somewhere. A+ Andreas P.S. I prefer 36-C in real life - shall we start a poll ? Could be another, not yet available, indicator for the quants on board
What's your problem exactly with this article because you're right my brain's size doesn't allow me to understand your perplexity about it ? Since you said here http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=365332#post365332 'What I found rather interesting in this thread is the distinction made between "indicator" and "data". To me, the values generated by a generator or algorithm, say, RSI are just "data" until interpreted to give an "indication". Still I would like to hear your definition.' Is it that this article is just data for you and cannot be interpreted by your brain as valuable information ? I'm sorry that such article written by a Nobel Prize is out of reach for you but I thought that he was very readible and pedagogical enough to be very understandable by anybody except a few ones perhaps like you. Forgive me then .