|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
MetaStock Version 8 will let you do multiple explorations at once, and you
can use the results of one to feed into a later one. Perhaps you can
masterfully combine a series of explorations, and reach a conclusion. Even
though you would be running a series of explorations, to you, with version
8, it will be just as easy as running a single exploration.
If you want, you can then change the order of the exploration series, and
thus compare the number of securities resulting at the end of the process.
Nicholas
-----Original Message-----
From: Yarroll [mailto:komin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 4:24 AM
To: Metastockusers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Metastockusers] Question of simple logic
Hello List,
I have a question which may look silly to most or all of you but the more I
think about it, and especially the combinations of it, the less clear it
seems to me :-((
I'm trying to use the Explorer to find occurrences when events are contained
within the other events. Let's say:
Event1:=C>ref(C,-1);
Event2:=C>ref(C,-1) and C>mov(C,5,S);
As you can see Event2 is completely contained within the more general
Event1, ie. Event1 is the bigger set here and Event2 is completely contained
in it, or there are many cases when Event1 is true while Event2 is not, but
not vice versa.
This stuff is obvious. But there are indicators and settings not so visually
obvious. The right way to explore for these would be to enter the following
into
Explorer:
cum( Event1=0 and Event1=1 )
and this would yield always 0. So far so good.
Important to note here is the sequence here, from the general event to the
particular. What if I don't know which is more general? Should I then run
the exploration both ways, ie.
first:
cum( Event1=0 and Event1=1 )
and if it yields a number greater than 0, the reverse:
cum( Event1=1 and Event1=0 )
and if this one yields greater than 0, then the conclusion would be that
Event1 and Event2 are either mutually exclusive or overlapping.
But in order to do that I'd have to run 2 explorations, would it be possible
to have just one? I have lots of such explorations to run :-((
The only thing I can think of is to first run the exploration to get the
total number of occurrences of Event1 and Event2, this tells me which is
greater.
Or maybe a formula like:
cum( Event2) / cum( Event1 AND Event2)
if this one yields 1, then we can conclude that Event2 is simply a subset of
Event1. Which is exactly what I'm after.
Anything else? Please, even if you have no better idea then please
acknowledge if all this argument makes sense to you at all. I've been
thinking of sets and subsets of events for a while and I'm afraid I'm losing
it :-((
Thanks, all the best
Yarroll
***
http://republika.pl/yarroll999/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Metastockusers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Metastockusers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|