So. The trend has progressed until T2F. 5th bar of the trend. Now, what can come next ? There are 6 zones : below T1, between T1 and T2F, between T2F and T2P, between T2P and P2, between P2 and P1, above P1. Good. If next bar is below T1, FdLVBO will be there. In the prior drawing, I’ve detected something that is not coherent. I’m talking about the zone between T2F and T1, which was in red in the last drawing I’m refering to. I labeled this zone as Fc/P3F. P3F is for G-band. It is « third peak fails ». P3F is a volume element, part of the 11, so if it happens it means the trend continues. I can see I can’t see the difference between Fc zone and P3F, which would yield me to be unable to see P3F whithout a Fc also. This would end with P3F being quite like an EE, although not in itself but producing an EE irreversibly so, same result. There’s an issue here. In addition tot hat, I can see here that this comprehension would in fact, prevent an existing EE from being : PP6a. PP6a is three T2Fs in a row, killed by INT. So, we have to both let Fc, P3F and PP6a exist. Right now, my understand is that in fact, after the T2F, so the last bar of the drawn trend above, if the nex bar is between T2F and T1, it would be a T2F repeat. If it was not, then T2F repeat could not exist and thus PP6a would not exist. So it’s false to see Fc/P3F zone here, and I also DD it’s not a « both Fc and P3F » zone. Each of the two should be excluded from obliged simultaneity of surgen sometimes. No need to kill this simultaneity all the time, for now. Maybe further DD will prove it is always the case. For now, wait and see, and above all let’s DD. So, if the green zone (between T2F and T1) was Fc/P3F, no T2F repeat could be, nor PP6a. So it cant » be. The green zone must be T2F repeat. And if a third T2F comes, then PP6a would be here and the trend would have come to an end. So, the question is, how to conciliate the possibility or surge of T2F repeat AND the existence of Fc AND the existence of P3F when we know that : - T2F repeat is after T2F when less than T2F and killed of less than T1 - Fc is a F-Band EE and a value lower than T2F and above T1 thanks to DD from Fd definition - P3F is the G-band EE and is defined as a volume value less than the T2F and greater than T1 ? Let’s reason using space and conditions. Space is a bounded geometric zone, defined by values with values being the result of the state of a relationship in a given point of time (if we consider time exists, which I do not). I know I’m under the condition of finding a space for T2P repeat to be possible within, and a different space within which Fc can happen, and same for P3F. They must be distinct zone sometimes, and mybe those zone can overlap on a fraction of themselves (zones). Intersection zone, so to speak. We know PP6a exist. So T2Frepeat two times MUST exist. The space letting PP6a to be is the space in which all the conditions of PP6a are gathered AND no conditions preventing it to be is absent. OR, itis the space into which PP6a is the less false ID among every other not possible events. What could prevent PP6a to surge ? Absence of repetition twice (so three T2F’s) of T2F AND/OR presence of three T2F’s with INT along the line. (lest remind at my LOD and from my own DDs, the INT would be on the first T2F of the serie, this would not be « between the three T2F ‘s ; I’m ready to refine this if it is to be done). So INT between either first and second T2F/second and third T2F would prevent PP6a to surge. Ok. What more ? The absence of repetition o T2F would also make PP6a impossible. How could this be ? By not having a T2F. In the drawing, I know that if the sixth bar is : -below T1 then Fd -between T2F and T1, T2F repeat -between T2F and T2P, Ca -between T2F and P2* -between P2 and P1, Fb - above P1** What about * ? : I’ve not labeled this zone in the prior drawing. Which is encountered here ? Ka for me. What about ** ? P1revchron for me. So I see two possibilities for preventing PP6a to happen, not to be, to happen. Either an INT or the surge of a P1revchron. Then what ? After this P1revchron, I DD the gate being closed for having two T2Fs in a row, then the 7th bar could be in the green zone. Same place, but on the next bar refering to where it had been located in prior drawing. And then Fc could be. This way, both PP6a and Fc could co-exist. BUT, I still see a problem. I know there is a volume element that does exist too, I mean Not T2F, and even Not Not T2F. About this Not and Not Not concept, I’ve already produced some studies and DD’s but I think I’ll to do more. Cause for now, with the way I’m beginning to understand things, I don’t find Not T2F nor Not Not T2F. They must exist. I remember when in a old post of this Journal I hade discussed the Not PP1. I had said that PP1 needs two conditions : three P1’s in a row AND acceleration. Let’s put aside from now Sprout’s LOD and DDs that makes him able to ID acceleration within a single P1. I had DDs that if two conditions are needed for an element, an EE for the present case, then it was logical that only one of the two conditions would produce a Not « x », while the absence of the two required conditions would produce the Not Not « x ». I had applicated this logic to PP1 and had said that 3P1’s w/ no acc would be Not PP1. I can see now that Not PP1 is not part of the 11 volume elements, so I will just stop using the labelisation of it on my charts. And, in addition, I can see Not Not PP1 would not make any sense as, even though we can have three P1’s in a row w/ no acc, there is no way one could ID a Not Not PP1 cause it would mean the third bar of the trend (if no wait) would not be a P1, so a T1 or an EE. So, what about T2F ? What is required for a T2F to be ? I mean, precisely, for a T2F w/ no EE ? A single T2F as volume element proving the trend continues ? We need T2P to be there, we need the bar to be below it and we need to be above T1. These are three conditions. The first condition is simply to have a bar after T2P. This is the very nature of T2F. Then we need volume above T1 and less than T2P. Here are the two remaining conditions to have an authentical T2F. My prior DD would lead me now to say if one of the two additional conditions is not filled, we’d have Not T2F, while a scenario in which both cadd conditions are not filled, we’d have Not Not T2F. I DD this is wrong. I DD my prior DD was wrong. Simply because, if after a T2P we have a bar less than T1, it’s Fd. And it has been proved in prior long DD message that this bar would be a T2F, by being the less false volume element. Plus, I undertand that, Not « x » means it is not « x ». In the past, I though Not Not « x » meant « x ». Like - by - = +. But I understand now it is not. Not is not. Not not is « it is not the Not « x » », so surely even more far away from the being of « x ». 22 :33pm, enough for now, tomorrow I’ll continue. To be continued…
PDF of a conversation between Jack and a participant regarding n+1 testing, bands, and EEs. Compiled from posts in the "butt" tread. You're welcome.
Lol I've just read it. I know every post of the doc, it's a great compil ! Thank you for sharing With that said, JH's answers cause both some noise and confidence for me. For example; I see he answered positively to the question : you create an EE of P3F and P3P, whil he also states when P3F is there, the trend is not finished, more is to come. I see here a contradiction, which is even bigger when I remember P3P and P3F are volume elements, not EE. Plus, I see the n+1 test is from what I understand, for G, Ka and Kb EEs. I don't understand this yet. Anyway it's too late for me to continue to work now I'll see that tomorrow AND most importantly, I know with absolute certitude that great Aha's are always just after big moments of confusion and apparent contradiction feeling so, I'm gonna sleep now with the feeling tomorrow as the soonest possibility, will be a day of great DD and nice AHA. Thank you @tiddlywinks, nice to see you back guys