What are some good books to study stock trading/finance for someone with a good foundation in pure mathematics and advanced knowledge on probability theory + differential equations (ODEs and PDEs)?
Literature on stocks
Andrew Ward
Other urls found in this thread:
John Ross
Read "The Misbehaviour of Markets" by Mandelbrot.
Elijah Martin
That seems interesting. Thanks!
Have you read it?
Asher Foster
>implying you can predict the stock market
Ayden Moore
Shreve's two-volume set on "Stochastic Calculus for Finance"
Andrew Stewart
Have you read them?
Jose Scott
That's not my intention, a good approximation model would suffice.
I will look into them.
If anyone knows some more I can also speak French, Spanish, Italian and German. Unfortunately no Russian.
Xavier Taylor
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
Jaxson Stewart
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.
Caleb Russell
Not knowing complexity theory and talking about algorithms is truly sad. Any program is an algorithm regardless of its complexity.
Samuel Gomez
>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.
Eli Evans
>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
Jeremiah Nguyen
...
Justin Ward
Science is not good for useful subjects
Lucas Hughes
Science is not useful
Brayden Powell
wow someone is jealous he can't speak multiple languages hahaha ばか comete suicidio por favor 先輩
Landon Peterson
buy high sell low
Ryder Campbell
Veeky Forums-science.wikia.com/wiki/Economics_Textbook_Recommendations#Mathematical_Finance
Liam Sullivan
/thread
Owen Ross
>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
Jace Flores
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.