[BlowFish]

One more thing occurred to me after I turned the computer off last night. As price is one dimensional, vector and scalar representations will be identical.

@maxima price changes are discrete sure, but there are more than enough of them to calculate acceleration. In fact in many applications (signal processing for example) the first step is to convert a continuous series into a discrete one (sampling)!

The issue is not calculating acceleration (that's pretty trivial) it is using that metric to make useful trading decisions! Acceleration will absolutely jump all over the place as the market ebbs and flows so you will probably want to rersample and/or do some sort of pre or post processing to smooth it.

Taking Tams idea a stage further comparing two different period momentum indicators might yield interesting results and jives better with acceleration being a second order measure.

[UrmaBlume]

Originally Posted by zdo »

Without the inclusion of mass (M) in the formula ( because best I can tell the instruments traded have no mass ) - what are the best measures of instantaneous acceleration of price (or derived trading information) ?

( and I swear, Tams, if you ask for a picture, I will blow you up with a smilie )

Thanks.

Without Mass there can be no acceleration because there is nothing to accelerate.

In this case The Mass is the Margin - How efficiently a large money stake accelerates is indeed an indication of the condition/balance of the market.

No mass in the financial markets? - lol. If there is no mass in the markets, how is it that they have such effect/impact?


cheers

UrmaBlume

[zdo]

Thanks all for giving this some thought.

“Why do you want something beyond a =v - v(-1) / delta t?”
Good question. My most recent Acceleration questions are sorta like 'is that all there is'?

I personally can only safely transfer a limited set of physical measure formula over to market dynamics. For example: across time I gave the market’s ‘mass’ analogue its due and operationally see UB’s “effect” part but can find no direct “impact” at all – so I suspended looking for how “leverage” or “volume” or whatever is an equivalent, approximation, metaphor, or whatever… As others have alluded – the ‘time and space’ of the market movements is not precisely the same ‘time and space’ of physical object movements.

Back to acceleration - many objects (and even processes) where acceleration calcs are needed do not step up, step back down, step up, stay the same, step up etc etc like price does in ‘auctions’. A car, boat, projectile, bird, even a ‘hovering’ insect – whatever, directly goes forward to a different place in space. I have developed some fairly useful (to me) indications related to ”v - v(-1) / delta t” . But when it came time to take it to the next level something whoa’d up and asked “am I even asking the right questions?”.
One part of this is asking ppl who are smarter than me in these areas.

Blowfish, I pretty sure you’re not really “missing something” . Practically, the question is about the ‘differences’ between ‘acceleration’ when price is actually going to a different level and when it is just ‘accelerating’ quite nicely but in a 0,1,2, etc tick range. Sorta like Tams ideas, sensitive measures of the acceleration of displacement ?? etc…

Any thoughts and contributions appreciated.

[UrmaBlume]

Originally Posted by zdo »

For example: across time I gave the market’s ‘mass’ analogue its due and operationally see UB’s “effect” part but can find no direct “impact” at all – .......

Some can see a very direct impact from accelerating markets.

Certainly there was an impact felt around the world from the downward acceleration we saw in the equity markets just over a year ago.

Further evidence of mass is that the impact is greater the greater the acceleration.

The mass is the money/equity/resource that each share/contract represents.


cheers

UrmaBlume

[andypap]

excuse me for intercepting this discussion

what about the most forgotten principle evaluated these days that
price is orbiting arround the present consesus of value..

if that is true whitch i think it is the only mass is volume deposited as a concrete foundation arround value with little or no fluctuation at all

the rest of the activity no matter how intense it might look is nothing but a passing storm...

and another thought to exchange opinions

what is closer to the nature of the markets
math and physics or plain linear geometry

regards

[Kiwi]

Originally Posted by UrmaBlume »

Without Mass there can be no acceleration because there is nothing to accelerate.

Complete and utter ********.

Acceleration = (Velocityf - Velocityt) / Time

No mass required. Force = mass * acceleration .... thanks to maxima ... I can see Daffyd getting that wrong too.


More seriously, for the OP, the poster who sarcastically suggested that this is applying elementary school ideas to the market is somewhat correct. Most try an acceleration measure (second derivative of distance wrt time or price wrt time in this case) at some point and discard it. Extremes (absolute or relative) of velocity and position seem to be more effective in the end and good trading is rarely complicated.

[maxima]

yay! finally Kiwi agreed with me on something!

[zdo]

Originally Posted by andypap »

what is closer to the nature of the markets
math and physics or plain linear geometry

Even though the OP was a code / algo question, those are interesting questions (... and thankfully I don't know the answer(s) )
Maybe start a topic in more general areas and someone who knows can explain.

The best way to kill a thread is to never start it.
The second best way is to post on topic
A third and rarely used way is to post off topic