## Why Elliott Waves Is Not Useful?

I have been corresponding with a mathematically oriented gentleman who is quite brilliant in his approach to the markets but who is very close to going off the deep end. He wrote me the following email:

“I have given the 45 degree – phenomenon a lot of thought. I pretty much would like to know how you figure out the inner workings.

“What I think is:

“(a) The route of the 45 degree cuts the Elliot 3 pivot and the 4 reverse pivot in half. The retracing swing from 3 to 4 (starting off with what looks like a congestion) is the playing field of the insiders. It quickly develops into a squeeze to the downside before the final 5th wave shoots up.

“( Those who know what is happening, take full advantage of the less informed by jumping on their resting orders. The key is the knowledge that the 5th wave lies ahead. Then the load of contracts could be transferred to the public’s ‘greed-panic.'”

While I would like to agree with what he has stated above, I’m not really sure of what he actually said: Are you? I submitted the following answer:

I know virtually nothing about how to count Elliott waves or the meaning of Elliott wave counts. I have no reason to believe in them and many reasons to believe that they are nothing more than what is stated about Elliott Waves. It is a THEORY. Personally, I want to trade based on facts and the reality of what I’m seeing. My belief that Elliott Waves are virtually worthless comes from the results others have obtained from following them. I am very familiar with these results. I know that Elliott practitioners have been dead wrong about the stock market for multiple years running. Elliott wavers missed the bull market of the 1990s. I know that many times they wrongly predicted the rise and fall of the U.S. dollar. I know that people who follow Elliott Wave Theory were wrong about gold and silver for many years, predicting rises as those metals fell to multi-year lows. It is difficult for me to understand why anyone would want to trade based on a theory when they could trade based on what is plainly seen in the markets.

Author: Joe Ross

Profits from games of knowledge: https://www.predictmag.com/

## Nikon D40 has a rectangle with yellow ‘waves’ in it on the digital screen

The only thing that comes to my mind would be the histogram:

Hit the ‘play button’ so you see the single image (with histogram). Then hit the ‘up’ or ‘down’ buttons on the wheel on the right side of the back of the camera.

That cycles through two information screens, histogram and regular display.

## d40 Nikon has a rectangle with yellow ‘waves’ in it on the digital screen

By clicking “Accept all cookies”, you agree Stack Exchange can store cookies on your device and disclose information in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

## That’s up to the DM.

As usual, there’s no single clear answer to anything that isn’t explicitly stated in the rules. A DM could certainly decide that waves represent an uncertain surface that the PCs will have to make rolls to move across; but they could easily rule the other way, since it’s magic that says you can move across water ‘as if it were solid ground’, and solid ground is not generally known for heaving up and down under your feet. The latter interpretation does have some basis in our world; the original Biblical example of walking on water, which presumably inspired the spell and ring, took place in a serious storm with large waves.

In general, I think the real answer comes from answering the deeper question, “What do you want to accomplish by calling for rolls?”

If there’s a fight or other challenge happening and you, as the DM, want the waves to count as an environmental problem that impacts the PCs but not their aquatic enemies (thus increasing the difficulty level of the encounter), then I think that makes a pretty great fantastical setting for the scenario.

By contrast, if you’re considering just having the PCs roll some checks to cross the stormy area, but those checks don’t come with any actual consequences for failure (usually taking a longer time to cross an area and looking like an idiot while doing it aren’t actually consequences), probably just skip it and move on to the next point of interest. You can describe them stumbling and sliding across the waves if you want to have a comedy beat, I suppose, but calling for checks in this scenario sounds a lot like the classic newbie-DM mistake of having the players make tons and tons of inconsequential rolls.

It’s also worth asking yourself if your plan is eliminating the benefit of the magic item in question. If the ring is allowing the player to walk on water, but you’re making them functionally perform the same rolls you’d call for from a swimming character, then you’re kind of taking away the coolness and benefit of having a magic item that’s perfectly suited to this challenge, and that’s usually a bad thing.

## plotting – Computing plane waves with the mangnitue constant to 1

I have a question. In regards with the given computation,

``````u0(r_, phi_) := Sum(I^(-n) BesselJ(n, r) Exp(I n phi), {n, -5, 5});
{Plot3D(Re(u0(r, phi)), {r, 0, 4}, {phi, 0, 2 Pi},
ColorFunction -> Hue),
Plot3D(Im(u0(r, phi)), {r, 0, 4}, {phi, 0, 2 Pi},
ColorFunction -> Hue)}
{Plot3D(Abs(u0(r, phi)), {r, 0, 4}, {phi, 0, 2 Pi},
ColorFunction -> Hue, PlotRange -> All),
Plot3D(Arg(u0(r, phi)), {r, 0, 4}, {phi, 0, 2 Pi},
ColorFunction -> Hue, PlotRange -> All)}
``````

which is in Cartesian coordinates, the magnitude of the series for the plane wave must be constant 1. How do I set this in the given code?

Thanks

## shaders – Subtract waves from tilemap

I’m wondering how I could create a shader that would turn a randomly generated shape like this:

And turn it into something more like this:

Essentially just creating a top down view of ocean waves that would flow in and out. I would prefer to be able to subtract this shape from a tilemap.

Any resources or pseudo code on how I could get started with this would be great.

## blockchain – How are Waves accounts and Waves nodes related?

I’m new to Waves. I am reading the documentation and cannot understand how the balance of a node is calculated. As far as I understood, only an account can have a balance. Then how to determine which account is linked to which node? I am interested in this, because it depends on the balance of the node what its chance of generating a block is.

The documentation for Waves contains the following:

This page describes actions with a node’s wallet. However, this section talks about how to change the node’s account. It confuses me. This makes me think that a node’s wallet and a node’s account are the same things. However, as far as I know, accounts are independent entities that are determined only by their signatures. I can create 10 accounts. Which one will become the node’s account in this case?..

## hawaii – Where on Big Island can I find beaches that are sheltered from waves?

I’m currently staying in Kona and learned that most beaches around here are very much prone to strong waves, which makes it hard to casually swim around. After a lot of Googling I saw that Anaehoomalu Bay (A-bay) is a recommended beach for this and today I’ve confirmed that it’s indeed great.

Are there other beaches sheltered from waves around Big Island? I’m able to find bits and pieces of information around the web, but not a definitive list. I’m hoping to find something closer to Kona than A-bay or at least an alternative I could explore.

## ap.analysis of pdes – Auxiliary spaces/conditions for orbital stability of traveling waves

In the context of orbital stability, probably one of the most used theorem to show the orbital stability of traveling waves is the one from Grillakis-Shatah-Strauss “Stability theory of solitary waves in the presence of symmetry”. This theorem roughly reduces the problem (under the right setting) to study the linearized operator around the traveling wave. For the sake of notation let’s denote the traveling wave $$phi_c$$, where $$cinmathbb{R}$$ is the speed of the wave. Then, following the same notation of GSS, we have the linearized operator is given by $$L_c:=E”(phi_c)-cQ”(phi_c),$$
where $$E$$ is the energy and $$Q$$ the “charge” (depending in the physical context, of course both conserved quantities related to the equation that the traveling wave solves).

During the last couple of months I’ve seen at least three articles where the authors cannot get the “right properties” on the linearized operator, say at most one negative eigenvalue and one-dimensional kernel, so they consider and additional space (say $$X$$) where they can get rid of the extra negative directions or the extra dimensions in the kernel. Let say, if we denote by $$mathcal{H}$$ the “energy space” associated to our PDE, now we restrict the analysis to $$mathcal{H}cap X,$$
and we try to prove orbital stability in $$mathcal{H}cap X$$. Now let me explain my question:

For me this is ok (in my naive intuition) as soon as these extra conditions are preserved by the flow (so the auxiliary space is somehow “compatible” with the evolution of the PDE, or in other words, the solution remains always in the auxiliary space). What is completely weird to me is to consider an additional space that is not preserved by the flow.

For example, in this paper, the author consider the following equation:
$$u_{tt}-u_{xx}-sinh(u)=0.$$
posed on $$mathbb{T}$$. Then, after working a while he got “bad properties” on the spectra of the linearized operator. So he said (bottom page 15), by restricting the analysis with the following additional space,
$$X:={fin H^1(mathbb{T}): int_mathbb{T}f=0},$$
he can get rid of all extra negative direction and extra dimensions in the kernel, and obtain that the spectra of the linearized operator has only one negative direction and a simple kernel in this restricted space. And hence, the orbital stability follows for initial data in this restricted space. However, notice that this condition $$int f=0$$ is not preserved by the PDE.

My question is, doesn’t this kind of argument have any problem with Grillakis-Shatah-Strauss’ result? I mean, is it true that we can just restrict the domain of the linearized operator (and hence the space of initial data) to any space we want in order to get rid of the bad directions, even when these additional spaces have no relation with the PDE? I’ve been a lot of time trying to understand how you match both things. I am asking here because is not the first time I see something like this (with conditions that are not preserved).

My naive answer would be that this additional space must be assumed to holds for all times (unless you prove it). Something like “suppose you have solutions such that for all times $$tinmathbb{R}$$ satisfies that $$int_{mathbb{T}} phi(t,x)dx=0$$, then…..(statement of orbital stability).

## color – Why does my white picture have a blue hue? And brighter/darker horizontal waves?

Two main things apply here that affect the result you got.

• When your camera meters a scene it assumes some of the scene is composed of lighter shades, some of it is composed of medium shades, and some of it is composed of darker shades. Absent of any instructions from you to the contrary, it will attempt to expose the scene so that the result is of medium brightness. But when you have a scene that is primarily white you probably don’t want a medium gray result – you want the whites to look white. But your camera can’t tell the difference between white and grey, and so it will normally expose for grey. You have to tell it to expose brighter using exposure compensation, probably at around +1.5 to +2 stops. The same is true of very dark objects, your camera can’t tell grey from near black either. But in that case you need to dial in -1.5 to -2.0 stops of exposure compensation.
• Fluorescent and some LED lights flicker. Not only does the brightness vary, but so does the temperature of the light. Peaks are bluer, valleys are yellower. Some people can actually see fluorescent lights flicker, but most of us can’t. Cameras certainly can, though! If your images show the effects of flickering lights, the best way to combat this when neither the camera nor the subject is in motion is to reduce the ISO and aperture and use a longer shutter time. By catching several cycles of the peaks and valleys of the light flicker the light should even out. So if your image is showing the effects of flicker, slowing the shutter time down when possible will help.

In your image, though, I’m not convinced the variation in brightness is caused by light flicker. It may just be an indication that that your lights project an uneven pattern of brightness.

Even with the JPEG file, increasing brightness and using the eyedropper tool to “pick” the white balance gives a more natural looking result. If the raw file were available a true WB correction could be done. But WB is “baked in” when the data from the sensor is converted to JPEG. And the color cast near the hot spot in the upper right is another indication that you have uneven illumination from your lights.