|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Yes I've heard all of this before. We still no definition for a proof. That
is the starting point for any scientific investigation. I don't care who
said what. Either you can define the proof or you can't.
Brent
The last paragraph of your memo clearly defined the faulty logic behind the
"random walk" hypothesis.
Just because the chart of some randomly generated numerical series may LOOK
like
a chart of stock price movement doesn't mean that they both have identical
CAUSES. But you're right when you say we can imagine anything. The
theorists
have.
And then they compound the problem by saying "If you believe otherwise,
prove me
wrong." Which, again, is another faulty logic sequence, because nobody can
prove a negative.
The "theory" began in the business schools, not in the departments where
logic
is taught. They would have laughed at the idea as one which could only been
promulgated by a freshman student from an inner city school.
One professor, with the more than appropriate initials of BM, realized that
he
could make quite a reputation for himself, and not incidentially a lot of
money
also, promoted the idea for his own benefit, but now, even he, is being
forced
to try to "adapt" his original thesis.
What I've never been able to understand is why any one who believes this is
even
remotely interested in investing their hard earned dollars.
Brent wrote:
> Hey, I've got a random trade generator built right into my software. It's
> about as successful as all other trader and trading systems are. Where is
> the 100% proof of non-random markets, or what would prove that they are
> non-random?
>
> Oh, and last I heard anyone on this list has as much right to say what
they
> want, as you do.
>
> I know that randomness can be proven. Can non-randomness be proven?
>
> If you doubt it, just tell me what the exact price of the Dow will be 5
days
> from today at 9:00est.
>
> Could the truth be that the markets are both random and non-random? I
guess
> that you didn't think of that.
>
> On a cloudy day you can see shapes in the clouds, like ships, faces,
flying
> saucers, etc. What ever you can imagine, and like many others you can read
> tea leaves, or see patterns on charts but until you can define your proof
> you can prove nothing.
>
> Brent
>
|