After debrief, I have not detected something that I could see differently an change/add/replace any ID. Nonetheless, on of the cases I previously mentioned happen as for a rtl that is, and then that does not exist anymore, and finally next bar gets its close out of prior rtl but I wonder if the rtl that is, at this moment, not existing anymore, is conserved in mind to see a BO,T1 or not. Here it is : When I saw it at debrief, I did not remember what I had in mindy when I logged it. Now I see low of black bar being below low of red bar. I know I am to use close of bar for BMrev and not penetration only. Therefore, here I have no doubt when debriefing. Nonetheless, if the low of black bar had been one tick above where it is, I probably would have seen a flat tl and I'd have IDd a BO,T1. But here not. Today, I wanna go slowly so I will probably not be touching my EE's Matrix, and will only do another log.
25th Session of MADA on 09/25/19 - 31 EE's IDd PART 1 PARTS 2&3 PARTS 4&5 This session let me once for all formalize something I have been wanting to formalize and discuss for a very very long time. Here it is : With this global view, it'll be easier. I've had a thought during this session, and during the last two one's, that finally, led me to be able to express the subtelty I want to expose. It is related to my most recent applications as for BO,T1 and sub-fractals. So...great ! As recently seen, we use accelerated (so non-true) rtls to ID BO,T1's. They are, certainly then, sub-fractals BO's. At the level of resolution provided by a certain timeframe, we see things from this POV. There is another distinction than is another serie of POV's : fractals. As I remember : all fractals complete, all trends fail to continue AND to see all fractals complete one must go beyond a single timeframe POV. Here we are. The core. I remember a message from JH, or maybe I'm inventing, but anyway, I remember a post from him where he was saying something like "I will then explain you how to deal with when you have FF's into FF's, or TF's into TF's". Although I remember those words and have used them many times to search on ET his message, I've never found it. I know what I'm talking about here does relate to what he was saying. The most above channel, thick pink, is a previously established short SF. Then we can see, in thickness terms, a similar long blue SF. It is inside of the SF. And it appears because this time, on this session, I've not only used accelerated tl's from FF's to build TF's, but also accelerating TF's rtl's to build SF's. I am very very happy to be able to express this. It has been a struggle so far, just even to manage to find the words. Bear with me I am not asking to myself whether this is correct or not (the way I built the long blue SF). I know it is, as I know BO,T1 as I ID them nowadays is correct, although to understand their treatment I need a higher LOD. I am wondering whether, being as this SF does NOT have its pt2 out of the SF's true rtl, is to be treated like a SF in itself, or like "a SF inside another SF that is, in addition, in the other sense". Hi hi higher LOD ?...Surely. Have to think, read and DD.