[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: TradeStation Precision - Summary (Pierre considering Bob not being objective and not listening)


  • To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: TradeStation Precision - Summary (Pierre considering Bob not being objective and not listening)
  • From: "Bengtsson, Mats" <mats.bengtsson@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 09:00:27 -0700

PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

> If you do not understand the elementary maths error calculus
> that I used, please ask to someone who understand it better.

You are still barking up the wrong tree. I understand the math error
calculus but it is are not the main thing (maybe in your lessons, but not in
this issue). The main thing is that we get as good results from their base
routines as possible. We should not be forced to change all their base
functions to other functions, just to include handling of precision errors
or division by zeroes, they should include that in their library as a
standard. The extra error introduced by their math engine should be as small
as possible. I bet most of us have computers with FPUs, and I bet most of us
will prefer not to rewrite their whole library one by one. They will not do
it unless they feel they will gain from it. We have a chance of making them
believe that.

Omega's neglect to bring Tradestation to use the available possibilities is
the issue. Their choice affects us, and our only way to get them to change
is to become important in their market. We do not do that by mumbling about
physics lessons and being satisfied with the bones they throw at us, we do
that by making them believe it is important to deliver a product that is as
good as they can, not as good as they feel is enough for their resellers.
 
Now I have learned they decided to no longer check for division by zero in
their library. If we as a group stress the fact that it is important for us
that they give us correct results, we stand a chance. If we keep murmuring
about so much other things that the issue of getting the right results
becomes only a noice in the mail group, we will never get them to get the
message.

I understand you do not want to risk your sales so you do not want any
dislikes towards Omega to become visible, you rather drown it in noice. You
could instead focus on your chance of getting more sales if Omega delivered
what they could instead of the minimum they believe they must. Your physics
lessons could be interesting in another context, but a lot more valuable
would be a rewrite of the Omega base routines to deliver more correct
results. The chance of getting that is higher if we focus on that, even if
it may mean we first have to see their sales go down before they understand.

Even those that has been using Tradestation for many years, and rewritten
all of their code to do what it should have done in the first place will
benefit from this. They will not benefit as much as the rest of us, but the
more people that stick to easy language, the easier it will be to
incoprporate new ideas into your personal library.



This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Cap Gemini Ernst & Young Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.