Forums  > Books & Papers  > espen haug unified revolution  
     
Page 4 of 5Goto to page: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5 Prev Next
Display using:  

athletico


Total Posts: 953
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2016-03-08 20:26
>> I like OTM options ;) especially when they are undervalued!

So do the rest of us! But in this case TheoValue = 0, Delta = 0.

Happy Pi Day next week, everyone. And Happy Tau Day on Jun 28.

EGH


Total Posts: 58
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2016-03-08 21:32
>> So do the rest of us! But in this case TheoValue = 0, Delta = 0.

You should know I don´t relay on the non-robust delta! You get delta 0 and are unhedged? hoo hhu I look forward to see the end of that trade! We will see the next months and the next decades! You guys have low appetite, so I need to feed all of you with a silver tea spoon.

I have just served you pi squared as a appetizer, chew on that for a while and I possibly serve you appetizer two before we go on to the main course.

Is T around? He used to invite me for brilliant seven course meals. Bitter (and astringent?) appetizer strengthen the appetite for the main course! There is still hope for pj to get out of the shadow! athletico, not so sure, looks like he is choking on the appetizer, Chew Harder! (or spit it out) -day soon here!

athletico


Total Posts: 953
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2016-03-08 21:47
>> hoo hhu I look forward to see the end of that trade! We will see the next months and the next decades!

When is the end of that trade? It's been trading at zero for 134 years. Even NNT wouldn't buy that tail.

numbersix


Total Posts: 299
Joined: Jan 2007
 
Posted: 2016-03-09 07:37
>Little has been written on how one can move any troublesome constants from space to time and vice versa

I have been trying hard, and writing a lot on how, to move p from time to place. But is p really a number?

Probably a lot easier to do it with a real number, like pi, or even with a troublesome constant, like pj.

BSM is not a model and, because it is not a model, no model can surpass it.

EGH


Total Posts: 58
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2016-03-09 08:47
N6 >>Probably a lot easier to do it with a real number, like pi, or even with a troublesome constant, like pj.

"Probably" = ? It is not easy to calculate probabilities of with only a straightedge and compass. To have uncertainty we typically also need some Time, to measure time we need clocks in addition! Did I not point out many years ago that the uncertainty-time interval, for example of the form was invariant under special relativity theory (Einstein-Poincare synchronized clocks etc.), and based on this one can indeed transfer transcendental volatilities (for example ) into non-transcendental volatilities by moving part of the uncertainty from space to time or from time to space. Sigma is not invariant, T is not invariant, it is the uncertainty-time interval that is invariant, but only for Einstein-Poincare synchronized clocks and yes also under Eddington synchronization. By using my squaring the circle method all sigmas can be turned into pi, e or unity only by using a straightened, compass and 2 clocks. 'All stocks have the same volatility' is not a false statement in space-time! And we live, eat and breathe in space-time!

Uncertainty (and thereby probabilities) has very much to do with space-time. We will not have fully developed uncertainty and probability theories before we have decoded space-time, and most of the decoding is already in my book, and more will soon follow!

athletico >> When is the end of that trade?

If you had traded a little outside (the box) exchange traded products you should know you not always know when the option expire. Besides your delta 0 and theoretical value 0 even the expiration time could blow up in your face! And yes even exchange traded can suddenly get their expiration date changed, I have seen it before in exchange traded warrants. athletico you need to sphere your trading, I already told you how to box the sphere, do it in reverse!

Updated version; now also for Platonic the Circle Yes still trivial tasteless appetizer!

EGH


Total Posts: 58
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2016-03-10 11:44
''Everyone" know when it is -day, but no one knows exactly when it is -days to -day.

pj


Total Posts: 3353
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2016-03-10 12:34
> ''Everyone" know when it is -day, but no one knows exactly when it is -days to -day.

So?

I saw a dead fish on the pavement and thought 'what did you expect? There's no water 'round here stupid, shoulda stayed where it was wet.'

EGH


Total Posts: 58
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2016-03-10 14:26
>> ''Everyone" know when it is -day, but no one knows exactly when it is -days to -day.

>So?

Zo is time continuous or not ?

pj


Total Posts: 3353
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2016-03-10 15:14
If time isn't continuous your construction isn't valid.

I saw a dead fish on the pavement and thought 'what did you expect? There's no water 'round here stupid, shoulda stayed where it was wet.'

EGH


Total Posts: 58
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2016-03-10 15:28
Time "is" continuous, you need to understand atomism to understand this!

pj


Total Posts: 3353
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2016-03-10 15:47
In that case your remark
> Zo is time continuous or not ?
has no sense

I saw a dead fish on the pavement and thought 'what did you expect? There's no water 'round here stupid, shoulda stayed where it was wet.'

athletico


Total Posts: 953
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2016-03-10 22:06
"It is going to be necessary that everything that happens in a finite volume of space and time would have to be analyzable with a finite number of logical operations. The present theory of physics is not that way, apparently. It allows space to go down into infinitesimal distances, wavelengths to get infinitely great, terms to be summed in infinite order, and so forth; and therefore, if this proposition [that physics is computer-simulatable] is right, then physical law is wrong."

- Richard Feynman Simulating Physics with Computers

Mandark


Total Posts: 12
Joined: Mar 2008
 
Posted: 2016-03-11 15:12
>> ''Everyone" know when it is -day, but no one knows exactly when it is -days to -day.

They do on your train. One of their days before. Or is that not allowed?

EGH


Total Posts: 58
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2016-03-11 16:06
>They do on your train. One of their days before. Or is that not allowed?

That is a good point!

At least we can move the -time problem into a -space problem (and then just eat the -pie).

pj


Total Posts: 3353
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2016-03-19 16:50
Old but good

I saw a dead fish on the pavement and thought 'what did you expect? There's no water 'round here stupid, shoulda stayed where it was wet.'

pj


Total Posts: 3353
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2016-03-19 16:50
double post.
Sorry

I saw a dead fish on the pavement and thought 'what did you expect? There's no water 'round here stupid, shoulda stayed where it was wet.'

benji


Total Posts: 196
Joined: Feb 2005
 
Posted: 2017-06-07 16:56
I am just passing by checking on the revolution

EGH


Total Posts: 58
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2017-06-24 22:41
The revolution is going forward at Planck Photon Rocket velocity (I am sorry you guys will be left light years behind, well nothing new there), some of my more recent publications

The ultimate limits of the relativistic rocket equation. The Planck photon rocket

Двигатели Бога (Engines of God)

The gravitational constant and the Planck units. A simplification of the quantum realm

and one of my more interesting working papers

The True God Particle! (still in progress, I will make an update on this later, some sections need to be re-written, but everything related to the max velocity should be correct, and it is REVOLUTIONARY)

And my most recent working paper:

Newton’s E = mc^2 Two Hundred Years Before Einstein?

As always your dirty and incompetent comments are welcome! The time for political correctness is gone with the solar wind!

And a very good advice (even free of charge), you guys should stick to Brain surgery and accounting, and don't forget to do some charity for your local community!

pj


Total Posts: 3353
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2017-06-25 20:18
Professor Haug?

Might your Highness be so kind as to provide?
(As axed back in 2015...)
> Could I get more? A chapter or two?
> With some real math.

< EDIT >
Indeed professor

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom Henry L. Mencken

EGH


Total Posts: 58
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2017-06-26 09:13
The paper below is basically from one of the chapters in my book, possibly hard to understand without the background from a series of chapters ahead of it (however the way I have re-written the chapter a little here makes it easier to read on its own than if I just dump out a chapter out of the chapter sequence).

The Return of Absolute Simultaneity and its Relationship to Einstein’s Relativity of Simultaneity ( a little download time if you are on slow network)

pj


Total Posts: 3353
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2017-06-26 10:53
Thank you very much!

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom Henry L. Mencken

EGH


Total Posts: 58
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2017-11-23 23:51
a couple of spinn off works

one of my favorites is that we can easily measure from the kitchen table the likely world smallest relevant length without any knowledge of the gravitational constant. The Planck length is much smaller relative to an electron (Compton wavelength of electron) than the earth relative to the Milky Way. And still we can measure it with double the accuracy of big G with a instrument far cheaper than a quality microscope (that only can see big things)


Can the Planck Length be Found Independent of Big G?

In my book I was uncertain what diameter my indivisible particles should have, and if they could be linked to any length in modern physics. It all seems to make sense when they have diameter equal to the Planck length, then series of infinite challenges in modern physics disappear. The uncertainty in the Planck length is exactly half that of the uncertainty in big G (percentage terms).

Also it has come to my attention that Mike McCulloch has derived a formula from Heisenbergs uncertainty principle that gives Newton gravity without big G and that he then converts to big G. In my view another strong indication that Newtons gravitational constant, G, is a composite animal. G is meters cubed divided by kg and seconds squared (m3 kg-1 s-2), what exotic animal is that? If it quack like a composite then it likely is a composite, still universal and important, but it is a composite of the more fundamental Planck constant, Planck length and speed of light.



(I mentioned this also last year in an article in physics essays, unfortunately not open access)

On the finance side we have looked at trillions of photons, and based on speculative idea linked it up to fat-tails for certain phenomena. (however this is not clear cut, and I expect some valid critics here, under certain assumptions possibly not so well discussed it holds)



Stochastic space interval as a link between quantum randomness and macroscopic randomness? (Physica A:)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437117310725

a better title would possibly be a stochastic number of particles....but the number of particles and space area are linked if depth of reality is quantized (especially if not silly point particles), and it is. Everything is indivisibles and void, all else is just opinions by quants!

pj


Total Posts: 3353
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2017-11-29 17:45
@EGH
WRT Stochastic space interval as a link between quantum randomness and macroscopic randomness

How precisely were you generating your 21000 and 2000 photon sums? Flipping deterministically or something else?

The deviation from CLT sounds quite interesting.
But I imagine it can be explained away by mathematics.
There are different possible limit distributions but they
are not that easily obtainable.

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom Henry L. Mencken

EGH


Total Posts: 58
Joined: Nov 2014
 
Posted: 2017-11-30 14:15
Good questions.. he he years since we were running it, and took forever to get it published as it was a long time with referees. So honestly I dont remember every detail and see we now should have been more specific on mention a few things here.

From the top of my head it must simply have been random binary deciding 2000 or 21000 (in other words not in between), so if binary is 0 (detector A) then 2000 and If detector B then 21000. If 2000 then flip 2000 photons and take sum of them, if detector A then flip 21000 and take sum of them.

Will see if can find the code, to confirm if that is how it was.

So super simply just sum of 2 gaussian with considerably difference in standard deviation. This is of course nothing new at all. What is "new" is to do it with subatomic particles, and to think about it as stochastic space that is somewhat linked to stochastic number of particles if the particles have a minimum spatial dimension or otherwise are quantized in a way that limit the randomness capacity in a given space-volume. Clark suggested stochastic clocks to get fat-tails I think. We say in finance time interval is typically uniform, but space interval on collect what one think are relevant information from is what is stochastic (partly due to how one weight information sources).

So if one mix all types of space areas (particle gropes) one should get closer to Gauss. One could argue that this possibly (likely?) not is case in finance. There is also another factor here not discussed in this paper that would lead to fat-tails also, but only marginal fatter tails than Gauss.

And also our study shows true random even over very long runs really seems to be "perfect" random, something that we not were convinced at on start. that we not were certain on before let it run for long time. I am not sure all so called true random generators would fit this criteria, we initially looked into several alternatives. Some uses software on top I think to "fix the data", the one we used basically spit out raw data un-manipulated and based on true quantum randomness.

I shortly discussed this with a well known quant other day, we have to distinguish between stochastic number of particles when assuming infinite particles can be stored in a given space area or in my view the more realistic with limited randomness capacity in a given space area for example due to most fundamental particles could hava a spatial dimension (back to atomism).

pj


Total Posts: 3353
Joined: Jun 2004
 
Posted: 2017-11-30 14:56
If on every step you flip a coin to choose one of the two, then
CLT should still hold as you will still have i.i.d.with finite variance.

If you flip deterministically...
< EDIT 2> Shouldn't it be bimodal then?
Need to think it over.

Or maybe you used some other rule and you
introduced some other interesting dependence.

< EDIT 1>
AFAIK Clark's stochastic clocks were in the precise opposite direction.
To make a Brownian Motion from any semimartingale Cool

The older I grow, the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom Henry L. Mencken
Previous Thread :: Next Thread 
Page 4 of 5Goto to page: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5 Prev Next