Пікірлер

• 
  @KipIngram2 сағат бұрын

  Ultimately "because it works." Consider: 0 + a + a + a = 3*a 0 - a - a - a = -3*a a + (-a) = 0 -3*[a + (-a)] = 0 (-3)*(a) + (-3)*(-a) = 0 (-3)*(-a) = -(-3)*(a) Let a be any positive number. From line 2 we have that -3*a is a negative number. From the last line we see that -3 times -a must be a positive number. Unless this is the rule then the consistency of the whole structure of arithmetic breaks down.

• 
  @kisaragi-hiu13 сағат бұрын

  "Spaghetti code of mathematics" exactly lol

• 
  @dvened16 сағат бұрын

  would have appreciated a conclusion

• 
  @user-lu9fg7pc9qКүн бұрын

  4:48 the derivative of logx is 1/(x*ln10)

• 
  @kylethompson1379Күн бұрын

  Does maximising losses guarantee profit? I hope so.

• 
  @whatitmeansКүн бұрын

  I hope I would had this video before learning thermodynamics a decade ago

• 
  @AmjadKhagga2 күн бұрын

  Here is the link to my blog where I wrote an article about my newly invented number system called base 100 number system ----> amjadkhagga.blogspot.com/2024/05/number-system-with-which-we-and-our.html

• 
  @khandmo2 күн бұрын

  You outta be ashamed of yourself leading me on in the thumbnail

• 
  @alexsere30612 күн бұрын

  When you say that you already need to know the answer, I don't think that is an impediment. At least in the example you showed you can find the integral of polynomials just using the summations formulas.

• 
  @Burbun2 күн бұрын

  If there's a game where you double or lose your bet on a fair 50% chance, you can come out on top by doubling your bet each time, but if you start at $10 and lose an unlikely but possible 5 times in a row, your next bet is $320 - you lose when the next bet is more than you have. I wonder if a similar strategy could work for a game with negative R, but with hilariously large increases in bet that would be unsustainable in real life

• 
  @donlimonesioyt96442 күн бұрын

  I did it only with differential calculus. It is definitely not a hard problem but you can make mistakes with all the calculations

• 
  @jasonleong58112 күн бұрын

  Thanks for the informative video. Quick question, at 4:46 shouldn't the direct partial be written with 3 subscripts, x, y, z? as the direct partial assumes x,y,z are constant

• 
  @raunaquepatra39662 күн бұрын

  shouldn't have called the curve a parabola.

• 
  @michaegi47172 күн бұрын

  Excellent explanation, a link to this video should be posted under all those investment strategy videos, especially all those daytrading scams. If you don't understand every aspect of this video, you should stay away from daytrading. If you understand the whole video, you will most probably don't want to do daytrading 🤩

• 
  @johannes79413 күн бұрын

  Wondering how this could apply to selling oout the money options

• 
  @dustinsoodak89543 күн бұрын

  I learned how to solve a bunch of different types of dif eqs in various math and physics courses, but whenever I tried to deeply understand the notation (like I would for a new programming language) it felt like my brain was returning "incomplete and inconsistent notation" errors. No one told me that there are technically several extra types of "d"'s or that physics & math sometimes used the symbols in slightly different ways. Before I started finding videos like this I thought I'd have to either dedicate a year of my life to reverse engineering the subject or wait till AI got advanced enough to explain it to me.

• 
  @dainess29194 күн бұрын

  Most Fortune 500 companies maximize profits and most keep growing

• 
  @FroisonControl4 күн бұрын

  What the hell am i doing to do with all these livers and kidneys?

• 
  @user-is5cl8gh8h4 күн бұрын

  When I clicked, I expected to learn something about investing. But only 11 minutes into this video, you've covered- Maths, Statistics and Chemistry

• 
  @michaegi47172 күн бұрын

  Yeah, but you shouldn't do any risky investment without understanding all theory. But you can summarize: as long as you are not willing to lose most of your invested money, you should try to stay as safe as possible. Try do build up a diverse portfolio and stay away from all investment strategies that try to rely on finding the right time to buy or sell. This holds especially true for all those daytrading stuff.

• 
  @paradoxicallyexcellent5138Күн бұрын

  There's a reason physics PhD's can become highly paid quants. The math works, and the math doesn't care where you apply it; it's the same.

• 
  @tipwilkin4 күн бұрын

  >insulting Imperial units And, stopped watching there!

• 
  @TepsiMorphic5 күн бұрын

  That description of cohomology is gonna be with me forever.

• 
  @botisa5 күн бұрын

  23:48 had no clue this guy was lying haahaha

• 
  @LLlap5 күн бұрын

  What's the answer?

• 
  @icedo10135 күн бұрын

  "As stupid as American units are..." what a shame. I was really enjoying the video until you decided it was a neat idea to ostracize a perfectly acceptable, functional, working system for internet globalist points. I guess I'll have no trouble finding my math content elsewhere from now on.

• 
  @cody87436 күн бұрын

  7:52 pulled a fermat i see

• 
  @camerashysd71656 күн бұрын

  I hear alot of math porn and little solutions

• 
  @lost4468yt6 күн бұрын

  What I did today: got lost on KZread and now I'm scared of numbers

• 
  @jAvViRolDaN6 күн бұрын

  This is a great video as a proof of the Kelly Criterion. Congratulations

• 
  @christophesiewecke92086 күн бұрын

  This video does a really good job of: - explaining the algebra behind concepts like mean, median, mode -showing math equations and formulae and what their terms represent -going in depth on the math behind statistical and probabilistic principles The editing is solid, although as people have pointed out, the audio recording on your mic has two different settings which is a bit jarring. The animation and overall visuals are excellent. This video does a very poor job of: -explaining basic algebra and calculus in a way that is comprehensible to people not well versed in math or who are just very much out of practice (like me!) -giving a conclusion or interpretation to all of the concepts presented. You can't leave the interpretation of a mathematical equation up to the viewer. This isn't a stats class in university. This is infotainment! I'm now going to go watch how the Kelly Criterion is interpreted elsewhere on KZread so I can actually draw conclusions on it and base my investing behaviour on those conclusions. I understand your hesitancy to do so yourself as you don't want people to make bad choices based on your advice, but I still feel like you could have done more to explain what the criterion implies without giving investing advice. I really appreciate the effort you took to make this video and as I said, there are many positive points, I hope you can appreciate my feedback as constructive, as no offense was meant. Maybe I'm not the target audience, but I strongly feel like an interpretive conclusion was missing in this video.

• 
  @feynstein10046 күн бұрын

  So.....what's the best strategy for the S&P500?

• 
  @user-bs9yw3dp5r4 күн бұрын

  Using the data, he calculated, that there is 59% of winning by using strategy "sell at 2х or at 0,75x. Now the question is what part of your portfolio you should invest. Another part of the video was about the Kelly's formula: r = P/S - Q/T. P =59%, S=0.25. Q= 41% T = 1. 0.59/0.25 - 0.41/1 = 1,95. For this tactic you should use 1,95x of your current portfolio. If u want to use any another strategy, you should analyse the data previously, count the w/l percent's and count wich parts of portfoilo u should use)

• 
  @feynstein10044 күн бұрын

  @@user-bs9yw3dp5r So use 2x leverage? But that's not really sustainable long-term, unless you invest in a leveraged ETF

• 
  @yudistiraashadi66436 күн бұрын

  I'm dumb with math, and I English isn't even my first language, yet your explanation is so clear I can understand all of them. Amazing job!

• 
  @n8trh7 күн бұрын

  0 to the power of 0 is 1. 0 to positive powers is 0 because multplying by 0 gives you zero. But 0 to the 0 is an empty product: you start with 1 and then don't multiply by anything. Also, the limit of x to the y as (x,y) approaches (0,0) doesn't exist, so there isn't a way to define this with its limit. I hope that helps.

• 
  @ManicMindTrick2 күн бұрын

  Is 0 to the power of 0 1 the reason why the universe exists? 😀

• 
  @eladdieyo847 күн бұрын

  So what games should we be betting on bruh... and what should we be betting... that's what I'm here for

• 
  @yllib47407 күн бұрын

  Is there an online calculator to find the right percentage allocation?

• 
  @user-ke8ui8il6v7 күн бұрын

  Did anyone create a system that has a shape of a hyperbolic plane? Would be cool

• 
  @Kosableify7 күн бұрын

  As I understood it, one application of the theory is when thinking of buying stocks. We consider a 'round' over when either the stock price has gone up by some value t say 50% or has gone down by some value s say 25 %, here then t=0.5 and s=0.25. Then by Kelly's Criterion one should risk r = p/s - q/t of ones portfolio, where p and q = 1-p is found by looking at the data. I wonder now can we also maximize our choice of t and s? Perhaps some multivariate analysis? Does someone know any reference? I just asked ChatGPT that and it said to consider G(t,s)=p log(1+rt)+q log(1−rs) with r = p/s - q/t and then finding maximum and minimum through partial differentials, which are often solved using numerical methods. Hmm interesting 🤔

• 
  @jAvViRolDaN6 күн бұрын

  Hi, the video stand correct. What chatgpt gave you was the the logarithmic median value of the expected return. This exact equation is shown at 28:47. As chatgpt says "finding maximums and minimums [...]", which is what he did; to find the derivative over r, equal it to zero and solve it: The function that maximizes the median expected return is indeed the Kelly Criterion (KC). Your question about the t and s values, i think, goes into the direction of what is "t" and "s" on a stock bet; which should both be dependent on the expected growth rate of the asset and its variance. How deep you can go with this analysis depends on your skill and goals. Determining "p" is then just a matter of using historical data and previous bets. Still, you should multiply the Kelly Criterion by a factor (1/2 or 1/4), pick solid assets with a good t and s values and diversify a ton. If you are day trading then this risk equation is great, as you can approximate "p" with your own data based on a lot of historical small bets. In any longer term investment this is harder, as in a sense any event is completely unique, thus you can only opt to use bayesian statistics to try to approximate the p value. I hope this was helpful

• 
  @KuroKazeZX8 күн бұрын

  this is so unfocused, going in such random places compared to the premise. this is a bad video. im incentivised to skip through it, because of how all over the place it is

• 
  @imchess18 күн бұрын

  Now no one can stop me from becoming billionaire 😅

• 
  @adokoka8 күн бұрын

  Good video but I find it confusing. In math, notations can mean different things. That is why they are specified at the beginning of a definition, proof or statement. Now you mixed everything together. God bless you 😅

• 
  @smoothcriminal531848 күн бұрын

  16:43 This has been bothering me, how did you come up with and calculate the number of times a six 6 would be rolled if a die is rolled ten times? I’ve been trying to calculate and figure it out, but I’m coming up different answers.

• 
  @joeedh8 күн бұрын

  There is such a thing as a bidirectional taylor series, s-power series.

• 
  @jonnyjazzz10 күн бұрын

  Very well explained. I use this concept to allow my trading bots to adjust Risk by thinking of the history of wins/losses as the changing probability, so it doesn't bankrupt me if market conditions become unfavourable or if there's faulty logic that I didn't perceive.

• 
  @rickym28479 күн бұрын

  How did you create a trading bot?

• 
  @jonnyjazzz9 күн бұрын

  There’s no easy answer for this. I have years of experience in programming multiple languages, I’ve been trading for years, and I combine those skills to do what I do.

• 
  @FarmerJesse9 күн бұрын

  ​@@rickym2847 Find a pattern/strategy in the market, make it objective, hire a programmer to create it. I've got about 7 of them.

• 
  @jonnyjazzz9 күн бұрын

  @@rickym2847 I forgot, math is very important, but how important really depends on how complicated you want to make things for yourself.

• 
  @Ali-fh6ti3 күн бұрын

  I do aerospace engineering and I applied my knowledge in mathematics for trading too. I have a basic grasp of coding so I code indicators and things like that. I have created a document which contains all of the mathematics required to beat proprietary firms in trading indices specifically. The reason for trading firms is because the market is almost completely random, the firms give us an edge and the slight trend of indices gives an edge also. I would like to contact you since I see you are clearly not like other retail traders who fail (which I suspect is 99.999% of them). I can give you my number through email?

• 
  @_costinha_10 күн бұрын

  I don’t get it. What is the percentage of the stack that I should bet? The formula must have the expected value and the percentage only. Right? There is a lot of variables in the final formula.

• 
  @viagra52078 күн бұрын

  you have to worry about the discrepancies in your estimation of the odds because if you mess that up, then the kelly critereon stops working. in general though you want to give a conservative estimate of the probability. then put that into an online calculator that will solve it automatically.

• 
  @dustysoodak10 күн бұрын

  Solution: Get too big to fail, have tax payers cover the bill, and then give yourself a nice Christmas bonus.

• 
  @b42thomas10 күн бұрын

  math would be so much more understandable/accessible if mathematicians just used whole words/phrases to define variables instead of single letters. Like why do i need i hold in my head "r = risk" can you just say "risk"? what do you gain by abbreviating every little detail? i'm sorry if i sound annoyed or obnoxious but for me it's so much more easier to grasp the full concept of what is being explained when i don't have to hold all these little bits of translation in my head at the same time. I'm sure there's some level efficiency gained by growing the mental muscles of holding multiple definitions in ones brain at a time. but there is such a thing as over abstracting variables to be placeholders that could mean anything. this video seems really cool but i honestly just don't have the capacity to retain all these definitions just to understand what "p(w) * r / t - s" means. maybe my brain just works different or i'm dumb, idk maybe i'm just a software engineer who is so used to thoughtfully named variables that this level of abstraction just feel esoteric.

• 
  @Kashlarthemagicman10 күн бұрын

  To attempt to give a constructive response/roughly answer "what do you gain by abbreviations every little detail", I think there's a few things: 1 - visual space: Often, math expressions end up including many more variables and operations chained together than eg. programming expressions, so writing variables out as full names would produce a massive amount of text that many people would find more intimidating to read. (Personally, I would agree that the programming approach of splitting more complex blocks into a collection of smaller, more readable expressions is a more generally effective solution to this problem, and you do see this in math also to some extent.) 2 - abstraction is a tool: You mention "over-abstracting variables to placeholders that could mean anything". Most mathematicians see this as a very beneficial thing to do, for a few reasons. 2a - reusability: if you can map two systems onto the same placeholder structure, you can use the same analysis for both, and most mathematicians find it easier to recognize these patterns when thinking of them in threes more abstracted terms. 2b - (not) remembering definitions: With how mathematicians approach things, I think, maintaining awareness of variables definitions isn't actually something it's seen as useful to do. When manipulating a set of expressions, really all you need to keep track of is just the datatype of each variable, and the actual definitions only matter at the very end when you're plugging stuff in for evaluation. 2ca - definitional flexibility: Often, it's not clear what descriptive variable name to give something. If you have a particularly nasty expression and want to pull past of it out as a separate variable definition to make it easier to handle, you might have no idea what an appropriate intuitive name for that part would be. 2cb - definitional specificity: Often, giving a descriptive variable name is seen as a bad thing, since it may get mixed up with other uses of the term, and promote misuse or misinterpretation. "Average", as demonstrated in this video, is a great example of such a term: someone could easily write "avg" to mean geometric average and have it misinterpreted as meaning arithmetic average. HOWEVER - agreeing with you: Many sources do lean on symbol conventions to what I would agree is an unhelpful extent. My background is in electrical engineering, and physics texts are absolutely notorious for this; even worse, physics and EE texts disagree on some conventions, such as calling sqrt(-1) i or j. Overall, I would say the high degree of abstain and abbreviation popular in math is a very useful tool, but really could stand to more heavily lean on multi-statement formatting and declarative clarity.

• 
  @Kashlarthemagicman10 күн бұрын

  High degree of abstraction* typo in last line

• 
  @HiroTeaShi10 күн бұрын

  The world would be so much nicer if humans were naturally good at statistics and probability

• 
  @vinceguemat375110 күн бұрын

  on wikipedia i’ve seen the word “ideal” for “rng” (ring with out unit) is it really the same ? or there is a mistake i don’t see ?

• 
  @korigamik10 күн бұрын

  Really liked the video. Can you share the source code for the animations in the video?

• 
  @danielc.martin157411 күн бұрын

  Well its another logically equivalent point of view, which is always great to have

• 
  @TallestFiddle12 күн бұрын

  Thanks for the video, I enjoyed all the examples and metaphors in the beginning. I think it would be great if you had more in the second half. And especially to wrap up the video, some examples would have been great to drive the point home.