Why was Einstein in Hong Kong the day he won the Nobel Prize?

Plus, Vincent van Gogh’s love affair with Japan explored in exhibition in Amsterdam

Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics on the same day that he first set foot in Hong Kong – November 9, 1922. “It is the prettiest landscape I’ve seen up to now on the entire voyage,” he wrote, after driving around Hong Kong Island and riding on the Peak Tram, oblivious to the honour. The following morning, he and his wife, Elsa, departed aboard the Kitano Maru, the cruise ship that was carrying them from France to Japan.

Albert Einstein and wife Elsa aboard the Kitano Maru, in 1922.

Einstein received the Nobel news by telegram, on his arrival in Shanghai three days later, and was sightseeing in Kyoto when the awards ceremony was held in Stockholm, Sweden, on December 10. After spending almost six weeks travelling around Japan, the Einsteins returned home along much the same route, briefly revisiting Shanghai, Hong Kong (“In hope of being left in peace for once, we secretly go ashore …”), Singapore and Colombo. They then toured the Holy Land and Spain.

Einstein’s detailed record of the half-year-long trip – the first of several recounting his foreign travels – is soon to be published in full for the first time in an extensively annotated and supplemented volume, The Travel Diaries of Albert Einstein: The Far East, Palestine & Spain, 1922-1923. Pre-orders of the book can be made at .

ゼロ除算の発見は再生核研究所、日本

2017年11月15日(水)
テーマ：

The null set is conceptually similar to the role of the number “zero” as it is used in quantum field theory. In quantum field theory, one can take the empty set, the vacuum, and generate all possible physical configurations of the Universe being modelled by acting on it with creation operators, and one can similarly change from one thing to another by applying mixtures of creation and anihillation operators to suitably filled or empty states. The anihillation operator applied to the vacuum, however, yields zero.

Zero in this case is the null set – it stands, quite literally, for no physical state in the Universe. The important point is that it is not possible to act on zero with a creation operator to create something; creation operators only act on the vacuum which is empty but not zero. Physicists are consequently fairly comfortable with the existence of operations that result in “nothing” and don’t even require that those operations be contradictions, only operationally non-invertible.

It is also far from unknown in mathematics. When considering the set of all real numbers as quantities and the operations of ordinary arithmetic, the “empty set” is algebraically the number zero (absence of any quantity, positive or negative). However, when one performs a division operation algebraically, one has to be careful to exclude division by zero from the set of permitted operations! The result of division by zero isn’t zero, it is “not a number” or “undefined” and is not in the Universe of real numbers.

Just as one can easily “prove” that 1 = 2 if one does algebra on this set of numbers as if one can divide by zero legitimately3.34, so in logic one gets into trouble if one assumes that the set of all things that are in no set including the empty set is a set within the algebra, if one tries to form the set of all sets that do not include themselves, if one asserts a Universal Set of Men exists containing a set of men wherein a male barber shaves all men that do not shave themselves3.35.

It is not – it is the null set, not the empty set, as there can be no male barbers in a non-empty set of men (containing at least one barber) that shave all men in that set that do not shave themselves at a deeper level than a mere empty list. It is not an empty set that could be filled by some algebraic operation performed on Real Male Barbers Presumed to Need Shaving in trial Universes of Unshaven Males as you can very easily see by considering any particular barber, perhaps one named “Socrates”, in any particular Universe of Men to see if any of the sets of that Universe fit this predicate criterion with Socrates as the barber. Take the empty set (no men at all). Well then there are no barbers, including Socrates, so this cannot be the set we are trying to specify as it clearly must contain at least one barber and we’ve agreed to call its relevant barber Socrates. (and if it contains more than one, the rest of them are out of work at the moment).

Suppose a trial set contains Socrates alone. In the classical rendition we ask, does he shave himself? If we answer “no”, then he is a member of this class of men who do not shave themselves and therefore must shave himself. Oops. Well, fine, he must shave himself. However, if he does shave himself, according to the rules he can only shave men who don’t shave themselves and so he doesn’t shave himself. Oops again. Paradox. When we try to apply the rule to a potential Socrates to generate the set, we get into trouble, as we cannot decide whether or not Socrates should shave himself.

Note that there is no problem at all in the existential set theory being proposed. In that set theory either Socrates must shave himself as All Men Must Be Shaven and he’s the only man around. Or perhaps he has a beard, and all men do not in fact need shaving. Either way the set with just Socrates does not contain a barber that shaves all men because Socrates either shaves himself or he doesn’t, so we shrug and continue searching for a set that satisfies our description pulled from an actual Universe of males including barbers. We immediately discover that adding more men doesn’t matter. As long as those men, barbers or not, either shave themselves or Socrates shaves them they are consistent with our set description (although in many possible sets we find that hey, other barbers exist and shave other men who do not shave themselves), but in no case can Socrates (as our proposed single barber that shaves all men that do not shave themselves) be such a barber because he either shaves himself (violating the rule) or he doesn’t (violating the rule). Instead of concluding that there is a paradox, we observe that the criterion simply doesn’t describe any subset of any possible Universal Set of Men with no barbers, including the empty set with no men at all, or any subset that contains at least Socrates for any possible permutation of shaving patterns including ones that leave at least some men unshaven altogether.

 I understand your note as if you are saying the limit is infinity but nothing is equal to infinity, but you concluded corretly infinity is undefined. Your example of getting the denominator smaller and smalser the result of the division is a very large number that approches infinity. This is the intuitive mathematical argument that plunged philosophy into mathematics. at that level abstraction mathematics, as well as phyisics become the realm of philosophi. The notion of infinity is more a philosopy question than it is mathamatical. The reason we cannot devide by zero is simply axiomatic as Plato pointed out. The underlying reason for the axiom is because sero is nothing and deviding something by nothing is undefined. That axiom agrees with the notion of limit infinity, i.e. undefined. There are more phiplosphy books and thoughts about infinity in philosophy books than than there are discussions on infinity in math books.

ゼロ除算の歴史：ゼロ除算はゼロで割ることを考えるであるが、アリストテレス以来問題とされ、ゼロの記録がインドで初めて６２８年になされているが、既にそのとき、正解1/0が期待されていたと言う。しかし、理論づけられず、その後１３００年を超
えて、不可能である、あるいは無限、無限大、無限遠点とされてきたものである。

An Early Reference to Division by Zero C. B. Boyer

OUR HUMANITY AND DIVISION BY ZERO

Lea esta bitácora en español
There is a mathematical concept that says that division by zero has no meaning, or is an undefined expression, because it is impossible to have a real number that could be multiplied by zero in order to obtain another number different from zero.
While this mathematical concept has been held as true for centuries, when it comes to the human level the present situation in global societies has, for a very long time, been contradicting it. It is true that we don’t all live in a mathematical world or with mathematical concepts in our heads all the time. However, we cannot deny that societies around the globe are trying to disprove this simple mathematical concept: that division by zero is an impossible equation to solve.
Yes! We are all being divided by zero tolerance, zero acceptance, zero love, zero compassion, zero willingness to learn more about the other and to find intelligent and fulfilling ways to adapt to new ideas, concepts, ways of doing things, people and cultures. We are allowing these ‘zero denominators’ to run our equations, our lives, our souls.
Each and every single day we get more divided and distanced from other people who are different from us. We let misinformation and biased concepts divide us, and we buy into these aberrant concepts in such a way, that we get swept into this division by zero without checking our consciences first.
I believe, however, that if we change the zeros in any of the “divisions by zero” that are running our lives, we will actually be able to solve the non-mathematical concept of this equation: the human concept.
>I believe deep down that we all have a heart, a conscience, a brain to think with, and, above all, an immense desire to learn and evolve. And thanks to all these positive things that we do have within, I also believe that we can use them to learn how to solve our “division by zero” mathematical impossibility at the human level. I am convinced that the key is open communication and an open heart. Nothing more, nothing less.
Are we scared of, or do we feel baffled by the way another person from another culture or country looks in comparison to us? Are we bothered by how people from other cultures dress, eat, talk, walk, worship, think, etc.? Is this fear or bafflement so big that we much rather reject people and all the richness they bring within?
How about if instead of rejecting or retreating from that person—division of our humanity by zero tolerance or zero acceptance—we decided to give them and us a chance?
How about changing that zero tolerance into zero intolerance? Why not dare ask questions about the other person’s culture and way of life? Let us have the courage to let our guard down for a moment and open up enough for this person to ask us questions about our culture and way of life. How about if we learned to accept that while a person from another culture is living and breathing in our own culture, it is totally impossible for him/her to completely abandon his/her cultural values in order to become what we want her to become?
Let’s be totally honest with ourselves at least: Would any of us really renounce who we are and where we come from just to become what somebody else asks us to become?
If we are not willing to lose our identity, why should we ask somebody else to lose theirs?
I believe with all my heart that if we practiced positive feelings—zero intolerance, zero non-acceptance, zero indifference, zero cruelty—every day, the premise that states that division by zero is impossible would continue being true, not only in mathematics, but also at the human level. We would not be divided anymore; we would simply be building a better world for all of us.
Hoping to have touched your soul in a meaningful way,
Adriana Adarve, Asheville, NC
…/our-humanity-and-division…/

5000年？？？？？

2017年09月01日(金)NEW ! 
テーマ：数学
Former algebraic approach was formally perfect, but it merely postulated existence of sets and morphisms [18] without showing methods to construct them. The primary concern of modern algebras is not how an operation can be performed, but whether it maps into or onto and the like abstract issues [19–23]. As important as this may be for proofs, the nature does not really care about all that. The PM’s concerns were not constructive, even though theoretically significant. We need thus an approach that is more relevant to operations performed in nature, which never complained about morphisms or the allegedly impossible division by zero, as far as I can tell. Abstract sets and morphisms should be de-emphasized as hardly operational. My decision to come up with a definite way to implement the feared division by zero was not really arbitrary, however. It has removed a hidden paradox from number theory and an obvious absurd from algebraic group theory. It was necessary step for full deployment of constructive, synthetic mathematics (SM) [2,3]. Problems hidden in PM implicitly affect all who use mathematics, even though we may not always be aware of their adverse impact on our thinking. Just take a look at the paradox that emerges from the usual prescription for multiplication of zeros that remained uncontested for some 5000 years 0
0 ¼ 0 ) 0
1=1 ¼ 0 ) 0
1 ¼ 0
1) 1ð? ¼ ?Þ1 ð0aÞ This ‘‘fact’’ was covered up by the infamous prohibition on division by zero [2]. How ingenious. If one is prohibited from dividing by zero one could not obtain this paradox. Yet the prohibition did not really make anything right. It silenced objections to irresponsible reasonings and prevented corrections to the PM’s flamboyant axiomatizations. The prohibition on treating infinity as invertible counterpart to zero did not do any good either. We use infinity in calculus for symbolic calculations of limits [24], for zero is the infinity’s twin [25], and also in projective geometry as well as in geometric mapping of complex numbers. Therein a sphere is cast onto the plane that is tangent to it and its free (opposite) pole in a point at infinity [26–28]. Yet infinity as an inverse to the natural zero removes the whole absurd (0a), for we obtain [2] 0 ¼ 1=1 ) 0
0 ¼ 1=12 > 0 0 ð0bÞ Stereographic projection of complex numbers tacitly contradicted the PM’s prescribed way to multiply zeros, yet it was never openly challenged. The old formula for multiplication of zeros (0a) is valid only as a practical approximation, but it is group-theoretically inadmissible in no-nonsense reasonings. The tiny distinction in formula (0b) makes profound theoretical difference for geometries and consequently also for physical applications. T

とても興味深く読みました：

10,000 Year Clock
by Renny Pritikin
Conversation with Paolo Salvagione, lead engineer on the 10,000-year clock project, via e-mail in February 2010.

For an introduction to what we’re talking about here’s a short excerpt from a piece by Michael Chabon, published in 2006 in Details: ….Have you heard of this thing? It is going to be a kind of gigantic mechanical computer, slow, simple and ingenious, marking the hour, the day, the year, the century, the millennium, and the precession of the equinoxes, with a huge orrery to keep track of the immense ticking of the six naked-eye planets on their great orbital mainspring. The Clock of the Long Now will stand sixty feet tall, cost tens of millions of dollars, and when completed its designers and supporters plan to hide it in a cave in the Great Basin National Park in Nevada, a day’s hard walking from anywhere. Oh, and it’s going to run for ten thousand years. But even if the Clock of the Long Now fails to last ten thousand years, even if it breaks down after half or a quarter or a tenth that span, this ma
d contraption will already have long since fulfilled its purpose. Indeed the Clock may have accomplished its greatest task before it is ever finished, perhaps without ever being built at all. The point of the Clock of the Long Now is not to measure out the passage, into their unknown future, of the race of creatures that built it. The point of the Clock is to revive and restore the whole idea of the Future, to get us thinking about the Future again, to the degree if not in quite the way same way that we used to do, and to reintroduce the notion that we don’t just bequeath the future—though we do, whether we think about it or not. We also, in the very broadest sense of the first person plural pronoun, inherit it.

Renny Pritikin: When we were talking the other day I said that this sounds like a cross between Borges and the vast underground special effects from Forbidden Planet. I imagine you hear lots of comparisons like that…

Paolo Salvagione: (laughs) I can’t say I’ve heard that comparison. A childhood friend once referred to the project as a cross between Tinguely and Fabergé. When talking about the clock, with people, there’s that divide-by-zero moment (in the early days of computers to divide by zero was a sure way to crash the computer) and I can understand why. Where does one place, in one’s memory, such a thing, such a concept? After the pause, one could liken it to a reboot, the questions just start streaming out.

RP: OK so I think the word for that is nonplussed. Which the thesaurus matches with flummoxed, bewildered, at a loss. So the question is why even (I assume) fairly sophisticated people like your friends react like that. Is it the physical scale of the plan, or the notion of thinking 10,000 years into the future—more than the length of human history?

PS: I’d say it’s all three and more. I continue to be amazed by the specificity of the questions asked. Anthropologists ask a completely different set of questions than say, a mechanical engineer or a hedge fund manager. Our disciplines tie us to our perspectives. More than once, a seemingly innocent question has made an impact on the design of the clock. It’s not that we didn’t know the answer, sometimes we did, it’s that we hadn’t thought about it from the perspective of the person asking the question. Back to your question. I think when sophisticated people, like you, thread this concept through their own personal narrative it tickles them. Keeping in mind some people hate to be tickled.

RP: Can you give an example of a question that redirected the plan? That’s really so interesting, that all you brainiacs slaving away on this project and some amateur blithely pinpoints a problem or inconsistency or insight that spins it off in a different direction. It’s like the butterfly effect.

PS: Recently a climatologist pointed out that our equation of time cam, (photo by Rolfe Horn) (a cam is a type of gear: link) a device that tracks the difference between solar noon and mundane noon as well as the precession of the equinoxes, did not account for the redistribution of water away from the earth’s poles. The equation-of-time cam is arguably one of the most aesthetically pleasing parts of the clock. It also happens to be one that is fairly easy to explain. It visually demonstrates two extremes. If you slice it, like a loaf of bread, into 10,000 slices each slice would represent a year. The outside edge of the slice, let’s call it the crust, represents any point in that year, 365 points, 365 days. You could, given the right amount of magnification, divide it into hours, minutes, even seconds. Stepping back and looking at the unsliced cam the bottom is the year 2000 and the top is the year 12000. The twist that you see is the precession of the equinoxes. Now here’s the fun part, there’s a slight taper to the twist, that’s the slowing of the earth on its axis. As the ice at the poles melts we have a redistribution of water, we’re all becoming part of the “slow earth” movement.

RP: Are you familiar with Charles Ray’s early work in which you saw a plate on a table, or an object on the wall, and they looked stable, but were actually spinning incredibly slowly, or incredibly fast, and you couldn’t tell in either case? Or, more to the point, Tim Hawkinson’s early works in which he had rows of clockwork gears that turned very very fast, and then down the line, slower and slower, until at the end it approached the slowness that you’re dealing with?

PS: The spinning pieces by Ray touches on something we’re trying to avoid. We want you to know just how fast or just how slow the various parts are moving. The beauty of the Ray piece is that you can’t tell, fast, slow, stationary, they all look the same. I’m not familiar with the Hawkinson clockwork piece. I’ve see the clock pieces where he hides the mechanism and uses unlikely objects as the hands, such as the brass clasp on the back of a manila envelope or the tab of a coke can.

RP: Spin Sink (1 Rev./100 Years) (1995), in contrast, is a 24-foot-long row of interlocking gears, the smallest of which is driven by a whirring toy motor that in turn drives each consecutively larger and more slowly turning gear up to the largest of all, which rotates approximately once every one hundred years.

PS: I don’t know how I missed it, it’s gorgeous. Linking the speed that we can barely see with one that we rarely have the patience to wait for.

RP: : So you say you’ve opted for the clock’s time scale to be transparent. How will the clock communicate how fast it’s going?

PS: By placing the clock in a mountain we have a reference to long time. The stratigraphy provides us with the slowest metric. The clock is a middle point between millennia and seconds. Looking back 10,000 years we find the beginnings of civilization. Looking at an earthenware vessel from that era we imagine its use, the contents, the craftsman. The images painted or inscribed on the outside provide some insight into the lives and the languages of the distant past. Often these interpretations are flawed, biased or over-reaching. What I’m most enchanted by is that we continue to construct possible pasts around these objects, that our curiosity is overwhelming. We line up to see the treasures of Tut, or the remains of frozen ancestors. With the clock we are asking you to create possible futures, long futures, and with them the narratives that made them happen.

再生核研究所声明 424(2018.3.29): 　レオナルド・ダ・ヴィンチとゼロ除算

次のダ・ヴィンチの言葉を発見して、驚かされた：

ダ・ヴィンチの名言 格言｜無こそ最も素晴らしい存在

我々の周りにある偉大なことの中でも、無の存在が最も素晴らしい。その基本は時間的には過去と未来の間にあり、現在の何ものをも所有しないというところにある。この無は、全体に等しい部分、部分に等しい全体を持つ。分割できないものと割り切ることができるし、割っても掛けても、足しても引いても、同じ量になるのだ。

レオナルド・ダ・ヴィンチ。ルネッサンス期を代表する芸術家、画家、彫刻家、建築技師、設計士、兵器開発者、科学者、哲学者、解剖学者、動物学者、ファッションデザイナーその他広い分野で活躍し「万能の人（uomo universale：ウォモ・ウニヴェルサーレ）」と称えられる人物

そもそも西欧諸国が、アリストテレス以来、無や真空、ゼロを嫌い、ゼロの西欧諸国への導入は相当に遅れ、西欧へのアラビヤ数字の導入は　レオナルド・フィボナッチ（1179年頃～1250年頃）によるとされているから、その遅れの大きさに驚かされる：

フィボナッチはイタリアのピサの数学者です。正確に�
��「レオナルド・フィリオ・ボナッチ」といいますが、これがなまって「フィボナッチ」と呼ばれるようになったとされています。
彼は少年時代に父親について現在のアルジェリアに渡り、そこでアラビア数字を学びました。当時の神聖ローマ皇帝・フリードリヒ2世は科学と数学を重んじていて、フィボナッチは宮殿に呼ばれ皇帝にも謁見しました。後にはピサ共和国から表彰もされました。

ローマ数字では「I, II, III, X, XV」のように文字を並べて記すため大きな数を扱うのには不便でした。対してアラビア数字はローマ数字に比べてとても分かりやすく、効率的で便利だったのです。そこでフィボナッチはアラビア数字を「算術の書」という書物にまとめ、母国に紹介しました。アラビア数字では0から9までの数字と位取り記数法が使われていますが、計算に使うにはとても便利だったために、ヨーロッパで広く受け入れられることになりました。（

historicalmathematicians.blogspot.com/2012/03/blog-post.html　　02/03/2012 -）

ゼロや無に対する恐怖心、嫌疑観は現在でも欧米諸国の自然な心情と考えられる。ところが上記ダ・ヴィンチの言葉は　如何であろう。無について好ましいものとして真正面から捉えていることが分かる。ゼロ除算の研究をここ４年間して来て、驚嘆すべきこととして驚かされた。ゼロの意味、ゼロ除算の心を知っていたかのような言明である。

まず、上記で、無を、時間的に未来と過去の間に存在すると言っているので、無とはゼロのことであると解釈できる。ゼロとの捉え方は四則演算を考えているので、その解釈の適切性を述べている。足しても引いても変わらない。これはゼロの本質ではないか。さらに、凄いこと、掛けても割っても、ゼロと言っていると解釈でき、それはゼロ除算の最近の発見を意味している:  0/1 =1/0=0。－　ゼロ除算を感覚的に捉えていたと解釈できる。ところが更に、凄いことを述べている。

この無は、全体に等しい部分、部分に等しい全体を持つ。これはゼロ除算の著書DIVISION BY ZERO CALCULUS（原案）に真正面から書いている我々の得た、達したゼロに対する認識そのものである：

{\bf Fruitful world}\index{fruitful world}

\medskip

For example, in very and very general partial differential equations, if the coefficients or terms are zero, we have some simple differential equations and the extreme case is all the terms are zero; that is, we have trivial equations $0=0$; then its solution is zero. When we see the converse, we see that the zero world is a fruitful one and it means some vanishing world. Recall \index{Yamane phenomena}Yamane phenomena, the vanishing result is very simple zero, however, it is the result from some fruitful world. Sometimes, zero means void or nothing world, however, it will show some changes as in the Yamane phenomena.

\medskip

{\bf From $0$ to $0$; $0$ means all and all are $0$}

\medskip

As we see from our life figure, a story starts from the zero and ends to the zero. This will mean that $0$ means all and all are $0$, in a sense. The zero is a mother of all.

\medskip

その意味は深い。我々はゼロの意味をいろいろと捉え考え、ゼロとはさらに　基準を表すとか、不可能性を示すとか、無限遠点の反映であるとか、ゼロの2重性とかを述べている。ゼロと無限の関係をも述べている。ダ・ヴィンチの鋭い世界観に対する境地に驚嘆している。

以　上

*057  Pinelas,S./Caraballo,T./Kloeden,P./Graef,J.(eds.):

       Differential and Difference Equations with Applications:

        ICDDEA, Amadora, 2017.

           (Springer Proceedings in Mathematics and Statistics, Vol. 230)

             May 2018       587 pp. 

アインシュタインばりに賢いキャラといえば？ アンケート〆切は6月25日まで

【相場観】

金：売り

白金：買い

ゴム：買い

ガソリン：買い

原油：買い

コーン：買い

Set and forget trading is a phrase that I coined several years back in an article I wrote on the topic. It’s a trading approach that works if you follow it, to put it simply. For this reason, I write about it often, and those of you who have been following me for some time no doubt understand the main benefits of the set and forget trading approach.

However, in today’s lesson, I want to focus on the psychological aspects and benefits of the set and forget approach and why it will help your trading performance, based on my personal experiences.

We get many members who email us regularly with success stories after they have adopted the set and forget approach. Hopefully, more of you will start trialing this concept because there is nothing that makes me happier than hearing my students’ success stories.

As you may already know from some of my other articles on this topic, set and forget trading works partially because of the way it helps you to systemize the entry, stop and target of your trades. By allowing the edge to play out uninterrupted, without you fiddling with it for arbitrary reasons, your long-term trading performance will improve simply as a ‘side-effect’.

However, there are also some very important mental benefits of set and forget trading which I don’t often discuss.

In this lesson, I want to focus on the psychological benefits of set and forget trading to help more of you make the mental transition to this style of trading. By committing to the trade completely before you even place it, it means you’re identifying the trade, placing the orders and walking away with very little monitoring. It also means being at peace and avoiding the emotional ups and downs that come with watching your trades as they are live. It means walking away and letting the market ‘do the work’ whilst you go do something more productive or fun. It means removing yourself from the temptations of chart-watching and getting influenced by chart whipsaws from news releases, short-term volatility and so on. In short, it means setting and forgetting!

By understanding the mental advantages of set and forget trading, perhaps you will gain a deeper understanding of its power and begin trading this way sooner.

Mental advantages…

1. Significantly Reduce Stress & Emotional Ups & Downs

Trading can be as stressful or as stress-free as you want it to be, it all depends on what you do. If you sit there staring at the charts all night when you should be asleep, you are doing to drive-up your body’s stress response and your cortisol (stress hormone) levels will sky-rocket both from the lack of sleep and from .

Now, as if the stress wasn’t bad enough, it’s going to get worse. You’re also going to hurt your trading performance by doing what I described above, this will work to further increase your stress levels. Eventually, you will be tired, angry, frustrated, on the verge of tears and left with an empty trading account.

By employing my , you can eliminate all this stress, worry and losing! Show me a set and forget trader and I will show you a stress-free trader who is on the path to trading success. There have been studies done on investors / traders and their trading performance in relation to their trading frequency, and they always show that less-involved traders do better over the long-run. Similarly, even though trading is a male-dominated arena, when women do step into it they tend to do much better on average than men. Why? Simple; they do not over-trade as much and they do not risk too much like many men do. The reason has to do with men having higher testosterone levels (a hormone that makes men take more risks and feel over-confident, things that can hurt you in trading). I have an article in which I discuss this female vs. male trading phenomena more in-depth, check it out: Suffice it to say, us men are not always right, and we can and should learn from women sometimes and trading seems to be one area where we can benefit from their seemingly innate ability to set and forget their trades.

2. Help Cure Your Obsessive Chart-Watching

Have you ever heard of positive reinforcement? It’s when you get a reward from doing the right thing this will then reinforce whatever the ‘right thing’ was that you did, so that hopefully you keep doing it. It works on kids and it can work on adults too, especially in trading.

When you watch charts all the time, you are probably going to lose money, so the chart-watching is a negative behavior. The tricky part here is that the act of while you’re doing it (dopamine – the chemical in your brain that gives you the rush you get from the ‘hope’ of making money), so you are essentially getting a mental reward from committing a negative behavior and you are reinforcing a negative behavior by continuing to do this. Therefore, traders get stuck in an addictive cycle of watching charts, making the same mistakes over and over and losing money.

But, YOU CAN STOP THIS and YOU CAN REVERSE IT! By utilizing set and forget trading you can literally begin to rather than negative. This will work like a positive feedback loop in which the improved performance you see from behaving properly in the markets works to make you want to continue that positive behavior. It’s no different than someone who sticks to a regime of exercise over a period of months; soon enough the endorphins and improved strength and energy-levels begin to reinforce the behavior of working out consistently. Yes, in the beginning it may seem like a ‘boring’ chore you don’t want to do and it may even hurt a little, but rest assured, that pain is good for you.

Setting and forgetting your trades is truly the key to eliminating almost every negative trading behavior that traders have. You need to implement this sooner than later.

A man smarter than me once said; “Suffer the pain of discipline or suffer the pain of regret”. That means, pay your dues, be disciplined now and it will pay off later, or you can continue to act lazy and undisciplined and you will suffer the pain of regret later.

3. Sleep at Night – Know What You Stand to Lose or Make

Sleep is critical to all physical and mental process in the human body. There are thousands of studies on this. I can tell you for a 100% iron-clad fact that IF you are losing sleep from watching charts and worrying about losing too much or not winning enough, you are hurting your trading performance and you are starting down the road to reinforcing negative trading habits as we discussed in point 2.

When you are using set and forget trading, your are pre-defined, so you know what you stand to lose and what you stand to win on any given trade. I can tell you from experience, this makes it a lot easier to get and stay asleep at night so don’t under-estimate this benefit!

This brings up another point; when you know what you stand to lose or win on a trade it goes a long way towards eliminating greedy behavior. Greed is a huge reason traders fail. It causes them to hold trades too long whether the trade is moving in their favor or against them. How many times have you been in a big winning trade and you didn’t take the profit because you had no profit target or because you moved your profit target from its initial setting? This is greed. Being greedy inevitably causes traders to end up with no money.

Bulls make money, bears make money, Pigs? Pigs get slaughtered! That is one of the oldest Wall Street sayings and it rings louder than perhaps any other, still to this day.

When you set a profit target and stick to it, you aren’t being
greedy, so over-time you should end up making money. When you set a stop loss and stick to it, you can pre-define your risk to a dollar amount you’re mentally OK with (potentially) losing. When you adjust your risk properly and you know what you can lose, you should have no problem setting your trade and walking away.

Disclaimer: There is never a 100% certain outcome for any trade and losses can sometimes exceed stop losses due to slippage.

4. Exercise the Mental Muscles of Routine & Discipline

When you make the commitment to start set and forget trading, you are kicking off a process that is self-reinforcing and will continue to strengthen the longer you use it. The power of routine and discipline, of repeating an effective system or process and staying accountable to THAT, will help you accelerate your development of the .

Once you have the proper trading habits in place you will see improved trading performance which gives rise to a huge surge of trading confidence in both yourself and what you’re doing. This reinforces the routine you started with and it all stems from committing to the set and forget trading approach.

Here is what this looks like in a diagram. Notice that set and forget is in the center, because it really all starts with that idea – once you commit you will quickly figure out the proper trading routine from the help of my articles and , then it really starts to almost ‘take care of itself’ as long as you stay disciplined and stick to the set and forget plan.

The set and forget ‘wheel’ of trading success:

5. Confidence Through Achieving Better Trading Results

Confidence in business, trading or even in your personal life is something that truly is so important has no dollar value; it is invaluable. Confidence breeds more confidence and it works to reinforce those positive trading habits we discussed earlier. By trading properly not only are you reinforcing positive trading habits but you’re breeding confidence in yourself and your ability to stick to a plan, this confidence helps you stick to what was working. It’s all a positive feedback loop as I said before.

Confidence is spawned by the momentum of winning trades or at the very least, having better trading experiences and having more control over the capital in your account; the strategic planning that set and forget allows, that results in improved results. It’s not going to happen all at once, but over time, when you , you will start to feel more in control because you’re controlling the things you can and not trying to control the things you can’t (the market’s movement is uncontrollable).

Being more confident will spawn more motivation to continue mastering the act of finding the trade and placing the trade. It’s just like the earlier example I gave of exercise; when you get over the initial ‘pain’ of it or the initial ‘I don’t want to do this feeling’ and you start seeing positive results, it’s going to inject you with a whole boat-load of motivation and confidence that will work to fuel your on-going progress and quest for being the best. This will give you the willpower and discipline you need to get make it as a trader.

Conclusion

I focus on the set and forget approach and 95% of the time I will resign to the fact I’m about to lose XYZ or make XYZ on a trade; this works to eliminate the potential of making emotional mistakes. The expectancy of my trading method combined with the set and forget money management approach has helped me, as well as many of my students improve their trading. It’s not an exact science, and of course there will be times trades are adjusted and there are times that no amount of mechanical money management can override the natural human emotion of trading, but we are not after perfection, we are after training and exercising the mind to be able to let go of the need to control the outcomes and control the market, after all the market is going to do what it’s going to do with or without us watching it or trading it. All we can is control ourselves and our own behaviors in the market and that is what is all about.