*law*. They're according to an accumulation of coincidence; scant accumulations at that. They might repeat somewhat better than 50%...which is good. Don't get me wrong, if systems of coincidence tilt the odds favorably, its good.

But a web of coincidence is not mathematic, geometric natural

*law*. That makes anything other than natural law largely subjective....hunch. Law, on the other hand, means it is inerrantly objective and predictive. Its cause and effect.

Let's look at the mathematics of the current market, use Bradley Cowan's adjacent cubes structure of the market and his Price Time Vector (PTV) measurement given the proper squaring (see the previous essay). Let's see if there is a preponderance of the "great numbers;" not just Phi, but root 2, root 3, root 5, Pi.... Here's the chart:

Let me describe it. First, its two adjacent cubes and it is a perspective drawing that reflects the "moving location of the observer" or, alternately, the "moving location of market points relative to the stationary observer." Solid black lines connect 5 specific market tops and bottoms (January 2000 top, October 2002 bottom, October 2007 top, March 2009 bottom March 2017...err something). I call the 5 solid black lines "real" because each connects two real price/time points. The remainder of the black lines are dashed and I call them "imagined" lines. They help us (me) in visualizing

**the mathematics**

**, the structure of law,***if the market has formed adjacent cubes as Bradley theorizes.*

**that must be taking place,**In addition to the apparently differing lengths of the solid black lines are colored dashed lines; two blue dashed lines representing the two diagonals of the square, two red dashed lines representing two of the four face diagonals that span two cubes in length, and one purple dashed line that traverses the center diagonal of the two cubes.

So how many "real" lines do we have? We have 10 since the colored diagonals all have market endpoints. There are 5 real points in price/time named A, B, C, D and E and there are 10 real vectors that are created by those 5 points.

Now one last item for this introduction. Look at vector AB; at near its midpoint is the number 648.27. The software (Cycletimer) has computed the PTV value given points A and B

*and*the squaring parameters that I have shown at the top left of the chart; the change in trading days X 6.5 hrs per day X .10 and the change in price X .10. Those are the same squaring parameters I used in the previous essay to compute vector AB's PTV value. Computed in the previous essay the value was 650.27 whereas the software computed 648.27. Obviously the mathematic calculation is preferable. The software works fine but the vectors are visually fitted to the high and low points and some small differences are introduced. A small price to pay to be able to fit vectors and create scenarios visually.

I've added some teaser equations. There are perhaps two dozen numerical "aha's" in the above chart I'm sure. I've probably discovered two dozen at this point. And I've added in red 5 of those discoveries. I've added them to whet your taste for what's to come.

Its not the number of "aha's" that are important; its the structure. Unless Bradley Cowan was deluded in his description of the importance the cube, the importance of the two adjacent cubes and the importance of root 5 (an aspect of two adjacent cubes, we should see mathematic structure in this chart. We should see the measurements and metrics described in the previous essay unfold in order to one another. Since the chart progresses left to right according to time, the mathematics unfold in that order. If we see a certain configuration of math occur in the market today, then, according to the mathematic structure of the Platonic solid being formed by the market we should see the next dependent mathematic aspect unfold in the successive market movements. Structure creates expectation...creates determination.

Work through the five teasers in red and see if we are not producing a variety of the mathematic metrics presented in the first essay. Take any of the 10 PTV values showing on the chart or all of them and recalculate them to keep me honest; its the same calc that derived the 650.27 value of PTV AB in the previous essay.

***

Next up I'll develop more of the preponderance of "aha" metrics of the adjacent cubes and perhaps categorize them. Two essays from now I expect to describe the structure of adjacent cubes using the metrics created and our expectations created by the math of the adjacent cubes.

I'm not sure I will take the analysis into a final essay using structure and metrics to predict, retrospectively compute point E in the current market. Prediction will, at that point, be only a matter of triangulation. Think about that.

*If points A, B, C and D and the structure of the adjacent cubes can derive our expectations of the values of PTVs AE, BE, CE and DE, is not determining future point E just a matter of triangulation*?*

Well, that's the plan. Let's see how far I get.

Jim Ross

*Finding a point in three dimensions requires 3 points and three vector to find a fourth point and is called triangulation. But market charts are two dimensions; we need only two points and two vectors to find a point. When I use the word "triangulation" it is only to connote the mathematic fixation of an otherwise unknown price and time. The "tri" would be more appropriately "duo" or "bi" and hence,"duoangulation" or "biangulation."

Jim Ross

*Finding a point in three dimensions requires 3 points and three vector to find a fourth point and is called triangulation. But market charts are two dimensions; we need only two points and two vectors to find a point. When I use the word "triangulation" it is only to connote the mathematic fixation of an otherwise unknown price and time. The "tri" would be more appropriately "duo" or "bi" and hence,"duoangulation" or "biangulation."

The next cube (rear of structure) is thus 9+ yrs to match the front side of the cube(s) 2000 to 2009 (or are these two cubes of 4.5+ yrs each) to match the two cubes 2009 to 2013+ and 2013 to 2017? How do you calculate the price in the rear unseen cube face?

ReplyDeleteI don't compute compute the back side of the structure. My reading of Cowan (not that it is valid) is that the market draws out each face sequentially left to right just as time only moves forward. In the two cubes, the face of the square ABCD is being etched upon and two faces from point C and D to E. The three unseen faces were either etched upon previously or will be etched upon in the future. Again, just my interpretation.

DeleteFor thought, I believe the entire structure of the two cubes can be derived from the four points if there is a determined mathematic structure to spacetime. Certainly, if I told you I had a cube and that one side was 1X1, you'd know the dimensions of the remaining faces. If I said we have a cube in perspective drawing and that on face is the dimension of ABCD in the current market, we should be able to construct the remaining faces, both seen and unseen. The complication in the market is the behavior of growth.

Jim