Trading Catechism

Discussion in 'Trading' started by nitro, Oct 19, 2015.

  1. nitro

    nitro

     
    #351     Aug 31, 2016
  2. #352     Sep 2, 2016
  3. nitro

    nitro

    :wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf:

    Thanks! Single Precision I believe won't work on many option models. Still, that is the way nVidia started out with GPUs, and eventually offered DP. I suspect this is the path Intel will take as well.

    I am really waiting for the Xeon+FPGA right on chip :wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf::wtf:
     
    #353     Sep 2, 2016

  4. Knights Landing supports double precision, too. The throughput would be 3+ teraflops. To me, the huge advantage of Knights Landing over GPU and FPGA is that it's x86 binary compatible. That is, I don't have to do anything esoteric (like OpenCL, Verilog) to take advantage of the massive computational power of Knights Landing. Any conventional program in a high level language (C++, Java, C#) will run (without even recompilation), and scale up as long as your algo is "embarrassingly parallel".

    Just something to consider, before you embark on your 1000+ Raspberry PI project.
     
    #354     Sep 2, 2016
  5. nitro

    nitro

    Ah I see re: double precision.

    Do you know if you can have more than one Knights Landing in a computer. So can I have a quad socket KL?
     
    #355     Sep 5, 2016
  6. No support for dual/quad KL socket yet.
     
    #356     Sep 7, 2016
  7. nitro

    nitro

    This is a note to myself and won't mean much to many people reading this thread. I may expand on it one day, but right going into it now it would suck all of my time into a black hole.

    Trading may be nothing more than Computing Homology on [a chain of oriented] simplices.

    It isn't clear if this dive in abstraction gains anything, but if it does, all of a sudden I have all of Algebraic Topology at my fingertips, a large branch which can be modeled on computers.
     
    #357     Sep 17, 2016
  8. nitro

    nitro

    I am starting to take a more disciplined approach to the coding and specification of trading system logic development.

    Most of my plumbing code is done in that it has been refactored to a very stable state. It is fast, object oriented so that bringing in new feeds is as simple as implementing an Interface. 90% of this code is Imperative style.

    However, I believe that business rules of trading systems needs much stricter set of guidlines. Since my systems are running when I am sleeping, I need to be certain they don't do anything crazy. The only way to "guarantee" that the computer is running the code I intend, I have or am adopting two very important programming paradigms:

    • Test Driven Development (been doing this for a while)
    • Specification By Example

    It is the second which I want to draw the attention of this post. Since I am moving all of my trading systems to functional languages (for now F#) with my plumbing code in C++/C#, it is important that my SBE be in a declarative style. I strongly recommend developers start thinking this way:

    Binding business requirements to .NET code

    http://www.specflow.org/
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2016
    #358     Sep 21, 2016
  9. nitro

    nitro

    You can embed F# into Excel and replace VBA

     
    #359     Sep 22, 2016
  10. nitro

    nitro

    I just realized that not all energy-momentum is carried by particles of the field. Some of it is associated with fields themselves. In physics chief among these is the electromagnetic field Fαβ.

    No wonder sometimes system gets it wrong. Hmm....But what is the theory? Other than momentum on the isolated series itself, I see no way to derive it.
     
    #360     Sep 23, 2016