Forex

There is general consensus among students of the markets that, for
reasonable lengths of time, the markets exhibit behaviors that cannot
be considered random or independent of a previous event in a
given time period. Not too long ago, in the minds of many people,
technical analysis was a field rated barely above numerology and
perhaps a rung or two below alchemy Today, those same critics are
beginning to acknowledge that the study of the markets from a logical,
rational, scientific perspective is a valid field of inquiry-and
one also with high stakes. In October 1993, the Econonist magazine
published a survey on mathematics of the market. This rather
lengthy survey noted that Wall Street was becoming populated with
physical scientists and engineers, men and women who spend their
professional careers quantifying events and elements in pursuit of
patterns that help them understand the nature of the universe.
Some resist the idea that quantifying market behavior-or any
behavior-is possible. This is hardly surprising; many people resisted
the ideas of Sir Isaac Newton when he described laws pertaining
to the physical universe some 200 years ago. Likewise,
Copernicus and Galileo met great skepticism when they employed
the principles we take for granted today We know that novelty and
validity are not always related, and so, some ideas that challenge
existing beliefs can be difficult to accept.
Describing the physical universe using quantitative terms has
become a part of everyday life, yet describing the behavioral universe
quantitatively is still something that many find uncomfortable.
They see behavior as a matter of spontaneity and free choice.
Quantification, however, implies patterns and order. Spontaneity
and free choice exist within a patterned and ordered framework that
is defined by certain laws.