What early tip-offs did I have that March 1 was not the final top for the 2000-17 cube? First and as previously noted, I should have recognized, by my own chart, the cloned cubes B and C axes did not form a perfect, overlapping straight line with their enveloping ellipse A:
Second, I should have noticed from my own chart of the period 2009-present, not previously shown, has some imperfect math:
Sectioning PTV's CE and DE according to the intersection of the 2007 price high and actual price results in components of those vectors that appear to be edging closer and closer to ideal root 3 and root 2:
But they have not reached root 3 and 2 ideals...yet. Recall the mathematic significance of root 3, the center diagonal of the 1X1X1 cube (3 dimensions) and root 2, the diagonal of the 1X1 square (2 dimensions). By establishing a new higher high in the not distant future, the subdivisions of CE and DE will inch closer to the Platonic ideals.
Isn't this intuitively attractive according to WD Gann commentaries on how we expect "vibration" to reach its mathematic extreme before some new shock or impulse or predetermined mathematic extreme reverses the market?
I should have known earlier, that a marginally new high is needed to perfect the math. It was the loose thread at that moment that I did not follow. Now, is the point E I seek, the newly identified point E at DJIA 22300 on May 2, 2017? That's my best "biangulation" at the moment.
Still working on the math. I expect a still finer point E projection and math that will support (or refute) the model of the market structure shown in the chart at the very top of the page.
And then the question will become, what is the correct point F...the next pivot bottom counterpart of point E top?
Jim Ross
Jim, being the devils advocate here....why are you going 2000 to 2017? Why not 1999 to 2016 and keep the 17 rhythm going? Also the 17y oscillates H-L L-H,,,not H-H as you are doing.
ReplyDeleteI know 1999 wasn't the actual high but it was the peak in the advance decline index. You also may fit the ellipse from starting in 1999 to still hit the high in 2000
Lemme devils advocate back at ya. Pull up a chart from say 1995 to present and, intuitively, you pick out the five most important price/time points. I believe intuition won't say 1999 important relative to the four points of 2000, 2002, 2007, 2009 and the yet to be know 2017.
DeleteWhy would I want to introduce a concept of advance/decline into a study of analytical mathematics in the 2nd dimension that involves only two measures of that dimension; price and time? My study does not involve the infinite dreamed technical analysis brainchildren of supposed "statistical" genii (quants). It involves only simple (said facetiously) analytical math and geometry. I'd maintain the brainchild of man are wet dreams where math and geometry are laws. But that's me.
I really had to think on that question of yours over night to see where I was. Thanks.
Jim
I wasn't actually advocating for the adv/dec it was more a throwaway, my main points were 1982-1999 is the 17 and you don't need to end on the actual high and second is that you changing the oscillation of the 17 cycle to H-H which I think is incorrect (not happened before)
DeleteSee my thoughts to Jeffrey on the 17 year cycle. I agree with the rhythm of the 17-year cycle which I first studied more than 40 years ago in Peter Coogan's "Rhythmic Cycles of Optimism and Pessimism." You might note Bradley Cowan includes a copy of it in Pentagonal Time Cycle Theory as a basis for Chapter 11.
DeleteI'd agree that if you are looking at universal cycles such as the 17 year cycle fitting "all things," you don't have to end on a high or low in DJIA which is just one thing. But a universal cycle does not fit all things. Every stock, index, commodity does not top on the same day. Within itself, however, the DJIA has it's own entirely unique mathematics which, in my belief, tells you exactly when and at what price level you'll find the high or low.
I do not believe I am changing the universal 17-year cycle at all. I'm simply looking at one subset of it which has individually perfect math.
Let me quote you "my main points were 1982-199 is the 17." You're talking approximate dates and assuming that the mathematic exact is impossible. This is the same thought that rationalizes that the world is a random walk and there just happens to be trends in the randomness. Trends in randomness....that's a contradiction in logic. If its random, it can't trend. But that's what modern statistical "theory" rationalizes.
I've seen too much to believe in randomness. The entirety of my research is to find the mathematic determinism that I am certain exists. In that context, the 17-year cycle is simply an infinite number of covariate cycles of stocks, commodities, people, groups of people, world events, planets.....that each respond to the underlying math according to their individual "number" or vibration. At the core, there is a 17-year cycle (I think) but judging any particular individual thing by it is an approximation and not a mathematic solution.
Just how I think at the moment, but its been a very long moment that I've been thinking this,
Jim
Hey jim ,Love your work but the top was march 1 the 17 year cycle hits again and within 3 days of the comps high in 2000 the 07 high was 17 years from the the 1990 low to the day. go back at fit march 1 as the top jeff
ReplyDeleteThanks Jeffrey, I do plan on going back and using March 1 as the high and testing the square GHEF to see if the ave diagonals are 1.414 of the ave side. But I'm diverted at the moment by something that's caught my eye.
DeletePresently I am trying to identify the math progression of each vector from square ABCD to double square ABGH. If I can identify that math progression of vectors then I can apply it to prospective square GHEF. That's the only way to analytically find point G at the moment.
I'm not accepting calling tops based on one dimension, that being the 17 year cycle. It might work out but there isn't an inviolate rule/law that can be gleaned such as "Every 17 year 1 month and four days, DJIA will reach a major top." In my present thinking, time and space are equivalent forces that are a zero sum game...conservation of the two primary forces just like conservation of energy.
Again, nothing proven yet except that there is a math structure to time and price (see the next essay).
Jim