Literature on stocks

>>8856474

Read "The Misbehaviour of Markets" by Mandelbrot.

>>8856497
That seems interesting. Thanks!

Have you read it?

>>8856474
>implying you can predict the stock market

Shreve's two-volume set on "Stochastic Calculus for Finance"

>>8856538
>>8856497
Have you read them?

>>8856528
That's not my intention, a good approximation model would suffice.
>>8856538
>>8856497
I will look into them.

If anyone knows some more I can also speak French, Spanish, Italian and German. Unfortunately no Russian.

>>8856593
Who gives a shit that you can speak multiple languages, you putrid fuck. Any book worth reading would be translated to English and you already know that. You only mentioned that you're a poliglot such that we could be amazed at your faggotry but we aren't. Learning a language is a waste of time when algorithms can now translate language regardless of the medium it is used in. Voice, writing, etc. You are obsolete, my faggy, piggot friend. piggot=pig+faggot

>>8856603
I'm here to get information and not to compete, but you obviously want to.
>Any book worth reading would be translated to English
new books in the European area will need some years to get translated and proofread
>we could be amazed at your faggotry but we aren't
I'm amazed about your faggotry
>algorithms can now translate language regardless of the medium it is used in
Say that face to face to a computer linguistics researcher. Furthermore describing (neural) machine translation as a simple algorithm is truly sad.
>You are obsolete
You're also obsolete since shitposting bots already exist.

>>8856678
Not knowing complexity theory and talking about algorithms is truly sad. Any program is an algorithm regardless of its complexity.

>>8856691
>Any program is an algorithm regardless of its complexity.
I didn't raise an objection against that, but see it like that: the argument was that an algorithm can solve every translation problem. Now
>a computational problem is understood to be a task that is in principle amenable to being solved by a computer, which is equivalent to stating that the problem may be solved by mechanical application of mathematical steps, such as an algorithm
as of Wikipedia. Since the original problem is most-likely nonlinear and may not have an existing solution as we want it to have, it can't be solved by a sequence of mathematical steps - only approached. Therefore the problem cannot be solved by an algorithm. What I wanted to say is that describing those models as algorithms wouldn't be correct. The programs nowadays are of course algorithms since they suffice the definition above.

>>8856723
>Since the original problem is most-likely nonlinear [...] it can't be solved by a sequence of mathematical steps [...] therefore the problem cannot be solved by an algorithm.

you're retarded

Science is not good for useful subjects

>>8857103
Science is not useful

>>8856603
wow someone is jealous he can't speak multiple languages hahaha ばか comete suicidio por favor 先輩

>>8856474
buy high sell low

>>8856474
http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Economics_Textbook_Recommendations#Mathematical_Finance

>>8857248
/thread

>>8856723
>good foundation in pure mathematics and advanced knowledge on probability theory + differential equations (ODEs and PDEs)
>Since the original problem is most-likely nonlinear

w-what

>>8856723
Wow. You really are a piggot. Pig + Faggot = the dumbest creature possible. Fat and excessive in stupidity and in bodyfat. A blob of disgusting filthy mess. That's what you are.