Monday, March 13, 2017

Current Market: I hate it when "there is a loose thread in the world."

To put the subtitle of this essay in context, its from Mark Gattis' and the BBC's rendition of "Sherlock Holmes; The Six Thatchers," season 4 episode 1.  Further context, Sherlock, Dr. John Watson and Inspector Lestrade are visiting with the parents whose son was tragically lost when Sherlock rudely leaves the couple to stare at an inexplicable detail of the room; an apparent (to Sherlock) table dedicated to Margaret Thatcher with a gap in between pictures and an irregularity in dust patterns.  From the transcript that can be viewed in its entirety HERE:

[FYI, "By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes" is from "Macbeth" and linked to HERE.]

From the table, Sherlock deduces a bust of Margaret Thatcher had been positioned there but had been removed, most likely broken....but not broken next to the table because there was a thick area rug.  A loose thread, where had the bust been broken?  Why steal a bust not having substantial apparent value in a house (semi mansion) having, no doubt, many valuable and marketable items?

As the trio are leaving the home Sherlock stops on the porch to examine something he'd seen on the porch when they first arrived and this exchange occurs:

Noteworthy, Intuition; data processed too fast for the conscious mind to comprehend.  Loose threads, details without identified connections to the puzzle and solution that must exist.  Arthur Conan Doyle was a spiritualist and his Sherlock did not miss details even if their connections were not apparent.  Mark Gatiss' Sherlock is equally attendant to inexplicable details and ever more so the believer that something deeper than the mind is at work in each of us.

Details.  First, the market cube chart for convenience:

Now the 10 PTVs and values in tabular form:

Pythagoras' root 2.  The first "structural aha" was discussed in the previous essay; if ABCD were a square in perspective then I'd suspect it would relate to its diagonals....and it did.  In the table above the average side length is 948 and extended by root 2 becomes 1334 (within 6).  Perhaps the diagonals of any four-sided structure will demonstrate such a relation; at least, any two-dimensional, space measurement only structure.  But this is a price/time measurement structure.  Regardless, the math worked exactly as I expected.

Vindication of Leonardo de Pisa' Phi.  An early iteration of Fibonacci series is 3 and then 5 giving us an early and easily recognized iteration of Phi at 3 / 5 = .60 or its inverse of 1.666.  Look at the diagonals (of square ABCD and the two squares) and note how they subdivide:
The earliest iteration of Phi in the chart which occurs chronologically before the later versions emerge is a crude approximation.  It is the relation of the diagonals of square ABCD at 1.6790 or its reciprocal .5956.  I thought this was an "aha" moment but it just didn't seem close enough.

And then I applied the Phi subdivision to the combined values of the two diagonals of the cube and found them to be much close to a Fibonacci 5 / 3 arrangement; 1.6662 and its reciprocal .6002.  Within  mere 10 thousandths of perfection.

What might be gleaned?  Obviously Phi is at work.  But more comforting, just as the Fibonacci series iterates closer and closer to theoretic Phi, so perhaps the market's early iterations of the mathematic goal to which it strives becomes more refined as the structure is formed.

More details.  Phi, root 2 and 2, Pi, root 3 and 3.... all over the place.  Here are just a few:

The square ABCD and Root 2 revisited.  Recall the early "aha" in discovering the sum of the four sides of ABCD divided by the sum of its two diagonals provided 1.  To be honest, I was a bit disappointed that average diagonals divided by average sides was 1.4068 compared to ideal root 2, that being 1.4142.  But there may yet be a happy ending.  Let's look at that same averaging number but let's also look at the reciprocal of the gross PTV values of sides and diagonals:
The sides of that twisted, supposed square ABCD in perspective relate to its diagonals by the ideal root 2 to the 4th significant digit.  Perfection.

Is that a coincidence?


I'm sure there are "details" above that are invalid, though seemingly close.  In those law does not require that they work out as they did; we have true coincidence.  The above represents but maybe a half day of searching.  A more disciplined and instinctive searcher than myself would find many more relations than did I.; many more "loose threads" I suspect.

Some "intuitive" thoughts:

Does the development of and 'end game' in the current market correspond the perfection of Phi or other metric among PTVs?  Take Fibonacci 3/5 or .60.  The diagonals of the sides of square ABCD, AD and BC are sectioned in to imperfect but recognizable .4044 and .5956.  Those vectors are complete early on in the current market, point D having completed in March 2009.  Much later on, vectors AE and DE complete (prospectively) in March 2017 and relate to one another again by Phi.  At this latter endpoint, a more accurate reflection of Fibonacci 3/5, that being .3998 (DE /(AE+DE)) and .6002, has developed.

Does the market, as it vibrates, exceed the Phi mark on an early swing and with each successive swing miss the mark by less and less until the Phi mark is substantially perfected?  Can a new marginal high create yet greater perfection of Phi between diagonal PTVs AD and BC or the Phi relation between two side PTV CE relative to center of cube diagonal BE (2734/(2734+1681)=.6193)?

Did March 1, 2017 print the final high of the structure that began in January 2000?  What happens to all these market measurements, which seem to have found perfection in their four PTVs AE, CE, BE and DE, if point E makes a higher high?

Which are the more sensitive PTVs in seeking Phi perfection; the pair of AE and DE face diagonals or the pair of the two sides vector CE and cube center diagonal BE.  The former are very close to perfection of the Fibonacci 5 / 3 iteration of Phi (presently at .6002) while the latter are far less perfected of the ideal Phi at .618 (presently at .6193).

Another all-time-high, only if marginal, or is it close enough to structural perfection?  A loose thread that perhaps some sensitivity analysis might answer but which will surely be answered in time.

Jim Ross


  1. Surely you will only be able to predict E as a top after you prove why time was up at points B, C and D. Time is more important than price. E could or will keep extending until time is up

    1. Hi George,

      I am familiar with WDG's concept of time is more important.

      I am convinced that the first three dimensions are one of the two great forces and that time, as Sir Arthur Eddington offered, is the fourth dimension and the second great force and the two are oppose one another. Price (space) can go both ways while we can experience time only in a single direction; forward. I believe space (price) and time form the web of spacetime that Faraday referred to as the "geometric points of force."

      Time in our perception, going in only one direction, is more important because it is constant and moving in only that one direction; it has greater predictability.

      I also perceive time and space (price) in the same terms as the conservation of energy; that delta time and delta space are a zero sum game. As time moves, a similar quantity of space (price) moves and vice versa. The two game each other back and forth in rhythm, in vibration. The problem is measuring the two on a similar frame of measurement. That's where the PTV is useful.

      Points A, B, C and D, prove one another according to Pythagoras' relation of the diagonals of the 1X1 square. The PTV value of the diagonals must be a factor of 1.414 (root 2) of the PTV value of the sides. And it is to the fourth decimal. Pretty compelling.

      I'm working on smaller time frame sections of March 6, 2009 to March 1, 2017 high at present to see if smaller waves seem to have mathematic/geometric relation to the present March 1, 2017 top. It is very labor intensive.

      I'm not convinced March 1 is the top but its darn close. I favor it as the top, but hope the shorter time frames will confirm one way or the other.

      Thanks for considering the work,


    2. Thanks Jim, I assume you are aware than Cowan, whom you quote extensively, stated recently that the new 17 Year up cycle started last November.

    3. No I wasn't aware of that. I stopped "stalking" him when he disassociated with the cycle-trader website. I somewhat thought he'd hung up the hat when his child was recently born (can't remember where I read that). Can you give me a link? And thank you very much.

      In his Pentagonal Time Cycle theory, the 17-year Uranus based cycle does not always coincide with market highs and lows (rarely does). I'm otherwise not sure what to make of the new 17-year cycle without knowing the context of the comment.

      Stock markets are only one aspect of an infinite number of subdivisions of the grander cycles. The organization of each of the infinite number of subdivisions must be mathematically articulated within themselves (if you believe in determinism). Every person would have their own mathematic cycle. The stock market is simply easier to understand than say the cycle of world war (he has an appendix on that in 4D) because the stock market is described entirely in objective mathematic terms. It was WD Gann's laboratory in understanding the structure of time IMO.

      Thanks for inspiring my thinking this dreary east coast morning.


    4. It was on his website, arguably not him but almost certainly with his imprimatur. That said it is easy to work through the logic there, as it follows what was presented in PTC and one can see how the timing unfolded.



Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.