That's cute. Nearly everyone on the forum except you knows what the word 'lag' means in relation to indicators. I'm not going to go around telling people that speed bumps do not exist, just because I can still drive in spite of them. So, I'm not going to go around claiming lag does not exist just because I can still trade with lagging filters. If I did go around claiming that, people would endlessly try to correct me, just as they endlessly pop up in this thread trying to enlighten you on the subject. But of course you won't listen.
In the end, you may have good points to make about how you use indicators. But as long as you continue to communicate it by denying the meaning of accepted technical terms, you will only get confusion and arguments. It's evident, if you look across your own thread. I mean, either you want to communicate with people or you don't.
The following 2 users say Thank You to Richard for this post:
I was going to suggest Ehlers work but to be honest I thought it might be how can I put it tactfully ..... a little challenging for the OP. A signal processing framework is an excellent environment to discuss lag.
Your original point was there is no such thing as lagging indicators right? It seems you are back peddling now and saying that they might exist but you just don't care? Your point seems to be a moving target?
Here (again) is a lagging indicator in TS
Plot [-1] (Close);
Another one, a 'floor trader pivot', plot on daily chart though 'works' on any chart.
As you can see it lags by exactly a day that's not to say it's not a useful indicator.
My point was, is, will be that all indicators, price patterns and every thing else in TA is based on past data. (If you have an indicator based on future data, I offered to pay 100K. Its in USD).
The point is that you should not look and care how an indicator is created, but look how price behaved from some intersection (or other objective point) with the indicator in to the future. As in the example in previous post.
I don't want to repeat my self so all the arguments you can read from my previous posts.
That is quite different to what you said in your first posts. What you say above is far less contentious. It is also expressed as an opinion rather than a cold hard fact. Whether I agree with it or not I would certainly not argue with that Looks like we have convergence here