Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form: If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q. Specifically what are you interpreting as P and what are you saying is Q? Let me be very clear as to how I see TA: 1. TA's general theory assumes that price movement is dependent on previous price movements 2. If the next price movement is not dependent then it's independent. 3. If price movement is independent that debunks TA's general theory
That is not what you said before. You should be very careful with logic. Before you said that since there is price movement dependence, that confirms TA because the theory is based on movement dependence. That is a fallacious argument. Now, if your 3. If price movement is independent that debunks TA's general theory is true, this does not say anything about TA if price movement is dependent. Again, denying the antecedent cannot deny the consequent.
and then you call others trolls. Let this post remain in the top 10 of ET. Holes don't dig men? I am glad you know that much. You must be the byproduct of public education in some third world country.
You diverting the discussion to things like grammar and this is real trolling. I read and write in 5 different languages and was not born in the US. The syntax I made is perfect in many other languages where the verb takes an ending to indicate the subject. By the way, stick to the subject. You are trolling. You know why.
I guess you like fallacies then. According to your argument If price movement is not dependent, then TA is debunked. This argument cannot be used to support the conclusion that if price movement is dependent TA holds. Concluding that from your argument is a notorious fallacy. Try to find another reason apart from your argument to support the conclusion that TA holds. To this point, you have not presented a valid argument but only notorious fallacies that are really embarrassing to see.
I see you changed your post. There is not such thing as "if or only if situation". If you mean "if, and only if", it cannot be because it implies tautological existence, a surpreme law.
Briefly speaking. TA is the study of market variables. A side show is PA which truncates to just price action and, therefore, is a lagging technical abstraction which is not very accurate or effective or efficient. The term "relative data base" is very accurate. For systemmic performance, an approach that is terrific is called RDBMS. SQL is one of its language applications. The Relative Data Base Management System approach has a 100% correlation of all the pieces of the market variables. People have the right to behave like Steve will re this post. TA has many many very adroit applications. Those who suggest that they have reasoned through that TA is crap are very justified in their personal views. For them it is crap just like for them what I say is crap. Read through their reasoning processes to understand how they were unable to use technical evidence to analyze and make decisions. This area is how you find out why the greater proportion of traders fail. You are basically wrong to hold the positions that you do if your goal is to make money. Most people hold positions and views to be able to think they are correct.(when they are just plain vanilla types.) All the variables of the market work together as the instruments in an orchestra do. You can visit a performance. You do have to take the score with you to deal with all the technicalities of what is presented. If you get interested in orchestrations, then you study music and music theory. As an electrical engineer, I once mentored a Julliard student in composition whose subset is harmony. In markets, the equivalent would be that you have to be able to read the music to be in harmony with the markets. But when you read music you read MORE than harmony. When a person studies music he studies more than harmony and composition. By thinking as you do and not being able to adjust your thinking, you would not be able to play in an orchestra or take direction from the conductor. You are leaving out the rhythm aspect of the orchestrations. You are failing to understand that harmony and rhythm have two different independent constructs that do come together to make an orchestration successful. What you pronounce is that TA is PA. You do not see that PA is only part of TA and as a matter of fact it lags. You and most others do not have all the pieces. Since you do not, you will not be able to put the pieces together and make them work for you. Strive to reconsider your weakened and less than marginal context. You have heard melodies. you may recognize that the NEXT note has requirements to "fit". To put it another way, if the next note doesn't meet very narrow and structured requirements, the melody is busted. The market is never busted. The events in markets always are precise and meet a very narrow and structured requirement. Taking all of the market's full offer all of the time, is founded on knowing all the aspects of the precise and narrow requirements that the market uses to produce what is next. So the author leads you astray. You know this is going on (how you know it is not a conscious understanding as yet for you). As you come into consciousness on various topics, you may recognize that your consciousness is playing second fiddle to something else. This other thing is the workhorse of your mind coming into play. You read that the author is in his "vendor" category and talking about the non vendor aspects of trading in markets. PA is a recent branching from the trunk of TA. It is a shortcut to mediocracy. As a simple footnote, Steve judges that my posts are crappier than his usual judgement standardof me. Some others may notice that I am adding the ATS aspects to the PEP and its four applications.