Degrees and Progress Labels

[TS Hennessy]

[Note: This thread was in another section.
It was taking a decided turn toward labels so I copied the thread here.

The posts showed up - all was well but it did not remain permanent. I still had
it on my screen so I recreated the thread but it is all under my
username and I've marked the usernames of each individual's post. TS Hennessy]


Actual Post by: BOGIE 1-3-2010

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the ebook. Interesting stuff.
I like the addition of the "extra" degrees. However, Grand Supercycle, Primary, and Intermediate degrees are difficult to add to a chart, given the fact that the number, or letter, is enclosed in either a square or a circle. Maybe there's a way to do that with a keystroke or two from an existing character set, but I haven't tried to figure it out yet.

I understand from the ebook that you don't want to depart too far from existing, accepted, symbols. However, if we now have an improved EW methodology, we may as well make the plunge and offer up an improved symbol list that is PC friendly. Just my thought on that.

I took a stab at trying to incorporate the new rule in marking up a chart. It's the first time that I've been able to mark up a wave that seemed to make sense, and, to do it without getting lost somewhere in the middle of the count. What I did may be all wrong, but, like I said, I didn't get lost in the count, and give up in frustration.

I was going to attach the chart, but I see that it needs more work yet.

Cheers

Bryan

[TS Hennessy]

I hear ya, Bryan!

It really DOES make the wave 'make sense'.

I am very glad to see it works that quickly.

As for degree labels, I know what you mean. The PC wasn't around then
but it sure is now. Maybe the EW standards committee will have an
answer for us soon.

Wait... you're not suggesting!!??

[TS Hennessy]

I set up a means for labeling charts.

See this thread:


http://newelliottwaverule.org/forums/thr...html#pid12

[TS Hennessy]

(01-14-2010 08:27 PM)TS Hennessy Wrote:  I hear ya, Bryan!

It really DOES make the wave 'make sense'.

I am very glad to see it works that quickly.

As for degree labels, I know what you mean. The PC wasn't around then
but it sure is now. Maybe the EW standards committee will have an
answer for us soon.

Wait... you're not suggesting!!??

Actual Post by: BOGIE 1-10-2010

Tom,

It would appear to me that YOU are the NEWR standards committee. Therefore, along with having introduced a new way of analyzing wavecount, and having introduced additional, new degrees, you ought to be entitled to introduce a new way of labelling waves that makes more sense for applying these labels in the computer age.

It wouldn't be a quantum leap from what is already being used. I would offer up that the circles, in Intermediate and Primary degree, could be replaced with Curly Brackets {}, and the square, in Grand Supercyle, could be replaced with the Less Than and Greater Than symbols <>.

It's still early enough since the introduction of NEWR, that this minor edition probably would not tear a hole in the Space-time Continuum. But it sure would make it simpler to label waves, properly, with a keyboard.

Again, just my thoughts.

Bryan

[TS Hennessy]

That is actually a good idea, Bryan.

Give me a bit to accomplish it.

Thanks for the participation.

[TS Hennessy]

Actual Post by: Pips4life 1-13-2010

Hi Tom,

Enjoyed the book and still working on understanding it.

Some suggestions:
* Pg 20 1st paragraph: "THREE" (Lost your meaning here. Was thinking a wave-3 at first, then figured out you meant "THREE wave corrective move". My suggestion would be to add these 3 additional words).


* Labeling Degrees. Lots of good potential here, but gotta say this: The prefix " (quote) is IMO not a good choice, because...
- When I displayed some PDF's with both " (mil,sub-mil) and * waves (nano,sub-nano), the two were similar looking blurs as can happen when the pixels have to round-off.
- Double-quotes are going to be really tough for a program (e.g. MT4) to handle. While they can be manually labeled on MT4 as such, when one tries to write a program to read/write the label with a literal quote, it's more likely to have it interpreted as a quote which surrounds a string rather than a literal '"' (For the same reasons, a single-quote ' wouldn't be good either).

- Double-quotes (and single-quotes) are commonly used in communication and make it harder to write/read in text without stumbling on it. Typists type quotes in pairs all the time. Interrupting that closing quote is, well, frying my brain. Even typing this post to avoid using quotes around the prefix-characters is tough to do because of the double meaning.


My suggestion: Use a minus sign.
There are other possible characters to choose from and maybe something else would be better. So far, I'm leaning towards a minus sign because ...

To remember the order of degrees, using your existing standard, I figured out a natural progression of a single-point ( . ) down to 2-sticks ( " ) down to 3-sticks in a star ( * ).

Along those lines (uh, forgive the pun), using a minus sign, the progression is then from a single-point ( . ) down to 2-points ( - ) down to 3-lines (or... many points) ( * ) .... and should you further define a sub-sub-nano (pico??) lower degree, perhaps ( # ) would be good as 4-lines (or even MORE points... haha)

The minus sign is well distinguished graphically from a "*".


FYI, my second choice alternative would be the prefix of a carat ( ^ ). As with double-quotes, there are 2-lines. Should be easy to program with. However, I noticed that when viewing some PDF's at weird resolutions, the "*" looked exactly like a carat. Not sure how big a deal this is or not.

The higher degrees from Intermediate and above are impossible to label with MT4. While there is a circle-1 arrow object, there is no circle-A or circle-a arrow (and arrow objects are a pain to label with compared to simple texts.

The use of square brackets like [1] and curly brackets {1} are possibilities but like double-quotes, these *may* be harder to program with because they get interpreted in the program-code rather than being treated literally. Not sure if these can be "escaped" in the code easily or not. ("Escape" means to treat them literally and the usual escape character is a backslash, \ ). I've written programs readily with parenthesis in texts but not these other two. If nothing else, these higher degrees can use some similar notation to some lower-degrees but just be a larger text (and different color) to distinguish it on a chart.

Am curious whether you think label size should be part of the degree definition or not? Obvious there are pros and cons. What's your take?


Perhaps this next issue is off-topic but it relates to characters used in labelling charts so I'll go ahead:

I'm curious... when you are labelling waves in progress, do you find yourself labelling the current wave position with any degree of uncertainly? For example, in typical EW waves, this might be something like "1 or A?" (or simply "1/A") followed be "2/B" then "3/C" then maybe... "4 or 1/A".

I know this kind of labelling with uncertainty is something you think the NEWR helps prevent and it may very well do so. Just asking if there is ever a need to label an NEWR chart conditionally ?


(And now REALLY off-topic of characters for labelling...)
FYI, I get that 4-waves are unconstrained with respect to overlapping wave-1 in NEWR. However, is the old EW rule about wave-2 not exceeding start of wave-1 still in place? If so, then do I assume correctly that a wave-4 should also not exceed start of wave-1?

Thanks,
Pips4life

[TS Hennessy]

Hi pips4life,

I'll start at the end of the Q's and work back.

The wave rules not revised are definitely still in place.

Special mention was required on the restrictions of 4th wave overlap since it is
so prevalent and was in error. But I did not see it needed to retype everything.

I understand the conditional labeling but you are correct - NEWR is to do away
with that unless you have not sufficient detail and then of course we are faced
with simply doing our best. We will find ourselves with much to use in the way
of deciphering what is real and correct once accustomed to the method.

Do not think that human error has been done away with.

Size of a label is only adjusted when it is cramped and pinched for my use.

That brings us back into the topic of new degree labels. As you probably
have seen there was already a suggestion regarding the higher degrees
being given a keyboard text friendly labeling.

Your suggestions are also good as far as having a memorable moniker like
number of lines. Honestly I do not really like the entire system but was
intending on changinging as little as possible.

I think the system should start from Millenium Wave which goes back to the
middle ages as Degree 1. Then the degrees move up one digit for each degree.

Wave labels would then be: 1-1 thru 1-5, 1-A thru 1-C, etc.

By the Sub-Nano or whatever you'd be at 17-1, etc. which gives the proper
preference the world has shown for the Arabic numeral system complete
with the place significance. To me that makes the most sense.

Sciences always have to deal with accepted methods from the past getting
gummed up in the workings of new information, communication and
technologies.

I had to trade stocks in fractions at first. They did away with it just in time
for the new millenium - Wow, impressive! They still teach fractions to kids.
To my knowledge, nowhere else is it acceptable to give an unresolved
question as an answer, but that is just what a fraction is. We evolve slowly.

I am familiar with escaping when using programming but I don't think we
need to worry about that since we are using graphic labels. If you were to
end up programming EW you would not need to use the graphical rendering
internally as variables, just re-translate for the display at output.

So how much to change and how many opinions does one consider is a
big question right now with this so young. As one opinion already raised,
the small adjustments should just be done and let the chips fall where they
may.

There is a great respect by this practitioner for the work of those gone
before and I would think factionalizing is a concern. If not I would have
already remade the system of labels according to the numeric degree.

Now as for visibility in PDF, the Roman numerals also will sometimes appear
as the wrong thing or be difficult to read when at a low magnification. That
was why the blowups were made available but it is also possible to set a
high magnification inside the PDF and move around the chart.

When you get right down to it PDF's should be able to rotate easily for a
landscape view. Oh well, maybe I just haven't found that on the menu.

You've read my rambling on and on now. What do you think about the
numerical approach and should we just make a whole new system or
not rock the boat too much?

[TS Hennessy]

Actual Post by: Bogie 1-14-2010

Quote:(Today 06:32 AM)TS Hennessy Wrote:
Hi pips4life,

I'll start at the end of the Q's and work back.

The wave rules not revised are definitely still in place.

Special mention was required on the restrictions of 4th wave overlap since it is
so prevalent and was in error. But I did not see it needed to retype everything.

I understand the conditional labeling but you are correct - NEWR is to do away
with that unless you have not sufficient detail and then of course we are faced
with simply doing our best. We will find ourselves with much to use in the way
of deciphering what is real and correct once accustomed to the method.

Do not think that human error has been done away with.

Size of a label is only adjusted when it is cramped and pinched for my use.

That brings us back into the topic of new degree labels. As you probably
have seen there was already a suggestion regarding the higher degrees
being given a keyboard text friendly labeling.

Your suggestions are also good as far as having a memorable moniker like
number of lines. Honestly I do not really like the entire system but was
intending on changinging as little as possible.

I think the system should start from Millenium Wave which goes back to the
middle ages as Degree 1. Then the degrees move up one digit for each degree.

Wave labels would then be: 1-1 thru 1-5, 1-A thru 1-C, etc.

By the Sub-Nano or whatever you'd be at 17-1, etc. which gives the proper
preference the world has shown for the Arabic numeral system complete
with the place significance. To me that makes the most sense.

Sciences always have to deal with accepted methods from the past getting
gummed up in the workings of new information, communication and
technologies.

I had to trade stocks in fractions at first. They did away with it just in time
for the new millenium - Wow, impressive! They still teach fractions to kids.
To my knowledge, nowhere else is it acceptable to give an unresolved
question as an answer, but that is just what a fraction is. We evolve slowly.

I am familiar with escaping when using programming but I don't think we
need to worry about that since we are using graphic labels. If you were to
end up programming EW you would not need to use the graphical rendering
internally as variables, just re-translate for the display at output.

So how much to change and how many opinions does one consider is a
big question right now with this so young. As one opinion already raised,
the small adjustments should just be done and let the chips fall where they
may.

There is a great respect by this practitioner for the work of those gone
before and I would think factionalizing is a concern. If not I would have
already remade the system of labels according to the numeric degree.

Now as for visibility in PDF, the Roman numerals also will sometimes appear
as the wrong thing or be difficult to read when at a low magnification. That
was why the blowups were made available but it is also possible to set a
high magnification inside the PDF and move around the chart.

When you get right down to it PDF's should be able to rotate easily for a
landscape view. Oh well, maybe I just haven't found that on the menu.

You've read my rambling on and on now. What do you think about the
numerical approach and should we just make a whole new system or
not rock the boat too much?

Tom,

I, for one, am all for a whole new labelling approach. The current method forces one to take into account symbols, brackets, etc., when trying to keep track of where you are in the wave count.

If the approach you suggest is applied, there would be no question regarding what degree is what.

I would suggest offering both the current method and an alternate method, and see which one becomes more popular. Remember the VHS/Beta VCR wars? Although there were advantages to both formats, VHS ultimately won the battle and became THE format.

It may not take long to find out which would become the preferred method. But if YOU offer it up now, the number of alternates that pop up may be minimized (especially if your method works well).

Bryan

[TS Hennessy]

Hi Bryan,

You know that VHS/Beta scenario is exactly what I was thinking about
as well when you first suggested this.

Now is the opportune time I will grant you that.

Considerations:

Keeping names or not. For one thing the names are very well established.
That may be because the numerical scenario was never offered but the
reason doesn't matter. Do we keep them?

It very well could remain as a numerical for labeling and a name for
jabbering about. It would be easy enough to discuss without names
using 6-3 rather than Primary 3rd in my view but it is after all a
communication tool and that requires at least TWO!

It also looks like perhaps we could use more degrees added. Those would
be at the smaller end of the spectrum. At this degree names become
somewhat silly.

What are your thoughts.

[Bogie]

(01-14-2010 09:11 PM)TS Hennessy Wrote:  Hi Bryan,

You know that VHS/Beta scenario is exactly what I was thinking about
as well when you first suggested this.

Now is the opportune time I will grant you that.

Considerations:

Keeping names or not. For one thing the names are very well established.
That may be because the numerical scenario was never offered but the
reason doesn't matter. Do we keep them?

It very well could remain as a numerical for labeling and a name for
jabbering about. It would be easy enough to discuss without names
using 6-3 rather than Primary 3rd in my view but it is after all a
communication tool and that requires at least TWO!

It also looks like perhaps we could use more degrees added. Those would
be at the smaller end of the spectrum. At this degree names become
somewhat silly.

What are your thoughts.

As a matter of fact, I just finished marking up a wave that, from my best guess at the proper degree, began at Nano degree. I soon ran out of degrees, however, and simply had to ignore the smaller notations. I did exercise some labelling liberties by adding an additional * to Sub-Nano degree because I just plain needed another degree on my 55 tick chart to make the count work out.

This just happened to be a wave of a trade that I was in (signalled by the STAR System). I got in long at the system trigger signal, and rode it all the way to the top of wave 5 (62 pips later) before getting out. I could have reversed, if I'd been more comfortable with my count, but I was happy with that...for the moment.

Cheers,

Bryan