oda.krell
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007


June 05, 2013, 02:22:00 PM 

@prof7bit
Calm down, please. You're going as far as accusing sarc of posting false information on purpose, when all that goes on in reality is a disagreement about the math behind what was posted here.
My take on it (already mentioned above, shortened version to follow):
I don't know exactly what sarc did in his model, but if the dispute between you and him boils down to plotting the data on a chart with a log n yaxis vs. plotting the data on a chart with a log n+1 yaxis, then there is no dispute. The two are, for our purposes, equivalent.
If that's not the point of your dispute, I'm sorry that I missed it.






Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.


Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


June 05, 2013, 02:23:48 PM 

and then sell your bitcoins.
My bitcoins are none of your business. But you are free to do whatever you want with yours. You can even plot log(2 pi cos(price + $42)) or whatever else you want and also make sure to try different values of 42 (maybe 42 Yen or 42 EUR) until the chart looks like you want it to look and then base your trading decisions on it. god, you're such a nerd. Not that nerdy. You can't take cos of a value with units.




sarc
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10


June 05, 2013, 02:25:13 PM 

@prof7bit
Calm down, please. You're going as far as accusing sarc of posting false information on purpose, when all that goes on in reality is a disagreement about the math behind what was posted here.
My take on it (already mentioned above, shortened version to follow):
I don't know exactly what sarc did in his model, but if the dispute between you and him boils down to plotting the data on a chart with a log n yaxis vs. plotting the data on a chart with a log n+1 yaxis, then there is no dispute. The two are, for our purposes, equivalent.
If that's not the point of your dispute, I'm sorry that I missed it.
I think he might be being facetious for a laugh...oh and to deny the need to sell his bitcoins.




Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


June 05, 2013, 02:26:38 PM 

@prof7bit
Calm down, please. You're going as far as accusing sarc of posting false information on purpose, when all that goes on in reality is a disagreement about the math behind what was posted here.
My take on it (already mentioned above, shortened version to follow):
I don't know exactly what sarc did in his model, but if the dispute between you and him boils down to plotting the data on a chart with a log n yaxis vs. plotting the data on a chart with a log n+1 yaxis, then there is no dispute. The two are, for our purposes, equivalent.
If that's not the point of your dispute, I'm sorry that I missed it.
No. Adding a constant before taking the log of an exponential function distorts the curve. You would only add a constant if the exponential was starting from an offset (to counteract that offset). If there is an offset in the bitcoin price (unlikely but possible), there is absolutely no reason to assume it is $1.




ElectricMucus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1005
God of the code.


June 05, 2013, 02:29:31 PM 

@prof7bit
Calm down, please. You're going as far as accusing sarc of posting false information on purpose, when all that goes on in reality is a disagreement about the math behind what was posted here.
My take on it (already mentioned above, shortened version to follow):
I don't know exactly what sarc did in his model, but if the dispute between you and him boils down to plotting the data on a chart with a log n yaxis vs. plotting the data on a chart with a log n+1 yaxis, then there is no dispute. The two are, for our purposes, equivalent.
If that's not the point of your dispute, I'm sorry that I missed it.
I think he might be being facetious for a laugh...oh and to deny the need to sell his bitcoins. Actually this is about if other people would consider selling them.




ElectricMucus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1005
God of the code.


June 05, 2013, 02:36:07 PM 

@prof7bit
Calm down, please. You're going as far as accusing sarc of posting false information on purpose, when all that goes on in reality is a disagreement about the math behind what was posted here.
My take on it (already mentioned above, shortened version to follow):
I don't know exactly what sarc did in his model, but if the dispute between you and him boils down to plotting the data on a chart with a log n yaxis vs. plotting the data on a chart with a log n+1 yaxis, then there is no dispute. The two are, for our purposes, equivalent.
If that's not the point of your dispute, I'm sorry that I missed it.
No. Adding a constant before taking the log of an exponential function distorts the curve. You would only add a constant if the exponential was starting from an offset (to counteract that offset). If there is an offset in the bitcoin price (unlikely but possible), there is absolutely no reason to assume it is $1. You are missing the point. A trendline is to best match the development of the price, and if it does match it is consistent and can be used as a model for an expectation. One could even estimate the "offset" systematically to better match the graph and this would be as valid or even more valid than doing otherwise.




sarc
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10


June 05, 2013, 02:57:00 PM 

@prof7bit
Calm down, please. You're going as far as accusing sarc of posting false information on purpose, when all that goes on in reality is a disagreement about the math behind what was posted here.
My take on it (already mentioned above, shortened version to follow):
I don't know exactly what sarc did in his model, but if the dispute between you and him boils down to plotting the data on a chart with a log n yaxis vs. plotting the data on a chart with a log n+1 yaxis, then there is no dispute. The two are, for our purposes, equivalent.
If that's not the point of your dispute, I'm sorry that I missed it.
No. Adding a constant before taking the log of an exponential function distorts the curve. You would only add a constant if the exponential was starting from an offset (to counteract that offset). If there is an offset in the bitcoin price (unlikely but possible), there is absolutely no reason to assume it is $1. You are missing the point. A trendline is to best match the development of the price, and if it does match it is consistent and can be used as a model for an expectation. One could even estimate the "offset" systematically to better match the graph and this would be as valid or even more valid than doing otherwise. ^yes.




ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1000
1PwXK9TpmmaaqaZz2eqcLkPU2C1Fcva39G


June 05, 2013, 03:02:32 PM 





oda.krell
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007


June 05, 2013, 03:03:12 PM 

@prof7bit
[...]
I don't know exactly what sarc did in his model, but if the dispute between you and him boils down to plotting the data on a chart with a log n yaxis vs. plotting the data on a chart with a log n+1 yaxis, then there is no dispute. The two are, for our purposes, equivalent.
If that's not the point of your dispute, I'm sorry that I missed it.
No. Adding a constant before taking the log of an exponential function distorts the curve. You would only add a constant if the exponential was starting from an offset (to counteract that offset). If there is an offset in the bitcoin price (unlikely but possible), there is absolutely no reason to assume it is $1. I never said you should add a constant to the value. I was talking about the equivalence of mapping to a log n and log n+1 chart. And that part is certainly true. EDIT: I see the problem now. Damn sloppy notation :) you're talking about 'x', and I'm talking about base 'n' in log_(n)(x). My point was, since the entire discussion between the two was sort of messy and unstructured, I'm not entirely sure what the claims of each party are, and I though at some point the two were arguing whether the above matters. Anyway, unless we start doing the mathematical part of this discussion in a more systematic fashion, I'm afraid we will keep misunderstanding each others' points. Let one thing be said, though: whether sarc's graph or method was entirely accurate or not, the prediction "in the range of 30 USD" seems to be the one you get in fact, if you do a simple regression on the entire historical data. This is not due to some massaging the data by sarc or a mistake in his method, but simply the result of that particular analysis. Whether that type of analysis is actually predictive of the future price is a different matter.




Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


June 05, 2013, 03:04:49 PM 

You are missing the point. A trendline is to best match the development of the price, and if it does match it is consistent and can be used as a model for an expectation. One could even estimate the "offset" systematically to better match the graph and this would be as valid or even more valid than doing otherwise.
Oh, for sure. I just don't agree with "We add 1 because it's the correct thing to do".




stereotype
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1000


June 05, 2013, 03:05:49 PM 

Haha. Cant even agree on Math.... long live the Wall Observer thread!




Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1000
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


June 05, 2013, 03:06:00 PM 

Anyway, unless we start doing the mathematical part of this discussion in a more systematic fashion, I'm afraid we will keep misunderstanding each others' points.
I'm game for it. If you're looking at base notation, I seem to recall having used [for example] loge(x) and log10(x). Obviously, it is not standard notation but a compromise for a textbased medium. I believe prof clarified things a little at one point and sarc continued to assert the incorrect thing as correct [ log(x+1) ]. Let one thing be said, though: whether sarc's graph or method was entirely accurate or not, the prediction "in the range of 30 USD" seems to be the one you get in fact, if you do a simple regression on the entire historical data.
This is not due to some massaging the data by sarc or a mistake in his method, but simply the result of that particular analysis. Whether that type of analysis is actually predictive of the future price is a different matter.
No disagreement there. The exponent definitely changed. The question is whether it is a bubble or represents a different phase of Bitcoin's growth. I'm holding on to mine...




oda.krell
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007


June 05, 2013, 03:12:29 PM 

Correction to my own post above:
30 USD is (probably, I didn't calculate it myself) the result of linear regression and, as I understood sarc, removing some outlier data (i.e. the bubbles).
The other charts I've seen that use the entire data have as at around 50 USD, IIRC.




sarc
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10


June 05, 2013, 03:15:27 PM 

Anyway, unless we start doing the mathematical part of this discussion in a more systematic fashion, I'm afraid we will keep misunderstanding each others' points.
I'm game for it. If you're looking at base notation, I seem to recall having used [for example] loge(x) and log10(x). Obviously, if you could use real notation, it would be different. I believe prof clarified things a little at one point and sarc continued to assert the incorrect thing as correct [ log(x+1) ]. nope. log(x+1) is right for this data, that's how I'm able to fit a straight line to it and make a valid estimate of the underlying trend to date.




oda.krell
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007


June 05, 2013, 03:16:50 PM 

Anyway, unless we start doing the mathematical part of this discussion in a more systematic fashion, I'm afraid we will keep misunderstanding each others' points.
I'm game for it. If you're looking at base notation, I seem to recall having used [for example] loge(x) and log10(x). Obviously, it is not standard notation but a compromise for a textbased medium. I believe prof clarified things a little at one point and sarc continued to assert the incorrect thing as correct [ log(x+1) ]. As I wrote in my 'EDIT' already, there is no disagreement between us re: correct use of log, only a confusion of notation (more due to my part, I admit, my way of writing it was highly misleading) log_(n)(x) and log_(n)(x+1) are of course not the same. If sarc stated that, he was wrong. Funny enough, for his results it shouldn't really matter much, the difference will be minimal I think.




Rampion
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1000


June 05, 2013, 03:19:40 PM 

Correction to my own post above:
30 USD is (probably, I didn't calculate it myself) the result of linear regression and, as I understood sarc, removing some outlier data (i.e. the bubbles).
The other charts I've seen that use the entire data have as at around 50 USD, IIRC.
That is pretty much consistent with EW analysis, isn't it? I mean, the bottom of wave 4 (bottom post2013 crash) is aprox. the top of wave 1 (2011 bubble high), isn't it? As I said earlier I arrived to the same conclusion using my very own "common sense" and analysis after April, 10th  but now I believe I was mistaken.




oda.krell
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007


June 05, 2013, 03:21:03 PM 

nope. log(x+1) is right for this data, that's how I'm able to fit a straight line to it and make a valid estimate of the underlying trend to date.
Do you really mean: log(x+1) as in log_(n)(x+1), where x = USD/btc, and n is the base you chose? If so, maybe that's a technique used in statistical modeling, but it certainly is not correct per se.




oda.krell
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007


June 05, 2013, 03:23:01 PM 

That is pretty much consistent with EW analysis, isn't it? I mean, the bottom of wave 4 (bottom post2013 crash) is aprox. the top of wave 1 (2011 bubble high), isn't it? [...] As I said earlier I arrived to the same conclusion using my very own "common sense" and analysis after April, 10th  but now I believe I was mistaken.
I know close to nothing about EW analysis. In any case, I don't think we'll fall back to 50, and certainly not sub30. I can see us going back to 6080, though, I admit :/




nmersulypnem


June 05, 2013, 03:23:18 PM 

I thought this thread was about wall watching, not indepth conversations about technical analysis. But maybe that was just me...




Jozzaboy
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10


June 05, 2013, 03:27:46 PM 

I thought this thread was about wall watching, not indepth conversations about technical analysis. But maybe that was just me...
Quoted for truth. Besides, this is Bitcoin. It tend to do what it feels like, depending on public faith in the currency not technical analysis and straight lines.




