|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
.Subject: PO 's believabality quotient
> I don't profess to be a mathematical genius <so flame me if you want, see
who cares...>,
> but it seems to me that the more PO argues about the precision argument,
the less believable he seems.
> Such a pity because he could be a really worthwhile contributor otherwise;
>
> Otherwise, this thread has run it's course, and everybody now knows the
REAL issues, thanks to Bob's and Mat's enduring patience and PO equally
enduring stubborness (alas to no avail.)
The prejudice here against Tradestation and the willingness to believe
anything
bad is so ingrained that it defies logic.
Think about this. If Mats is right, then there is a major flaw in
Tradestation that is
and has affected many of the indicators within the programme for the whole
of its
life. That could mean the indicators you trade with, and those I trade with.
This
major flaw has only just been discovered, thanks to the genius of Mats. That
is
what he is claiming. So if you believe him, your Tradestation is useless.
Throw it away. Because the errors he claims are a result of the way in which
the
programme uses floating point can appear anywhere.
On the other hand, he may simply have created a scenario so complex that he
has
got results that he doesn't understand, and is only too willing to blame on
a flaw
in Tradestation. PO has been his usual valiant self, trying logic in the
face of the
usual barrage of infantile nonsense.
Personally I don't have the time to go through and find his error, and
possibly
not the understanding. But just as I don't need to be told that a programme,
Mathematica, with one of the highest levels of precision available, will
produce
more accurate results than one with single precision, Tradestation, so I
have
enough confidence in the programme that makes my living not to bother.
So, the choice is between accepting that there is indeed a major flaw,
|