I'm having a difficult time finding the meaning for the words "as the value of the oscillator approaches", in relief of the definitions provided by certain dictionaries, in the following paragraph:
A technical analysis tool that is banded between two extreme values and built with the results from a trend indicator for discovering short-term overbought or oversold conditions. As the value of the oscillator approaches the upper extreme value the asset is deemed to be overbought, and as it approaches the lower extreme it is deemed to be oversold. -http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/oscillator.asp
value - mathematics - a point in the range of a function; a point in the range corresponding to a given point in the domain of a function: The value of x 2 at 2 is 4.
point - (maths) - a location
approach- 1. to come near or nearer to: The cars slowed down as they approached the intersection. 2. to come near to in quality, character, time, or condition; to come within range for comparison: As a poet he hardly approaches Keats.
Locations don't move, so I don't understand the use of "approaches" in the above context. And a "value" is not a moving point on a range.
Is the term "approached" or "value" being misused in the above paragraph?
How can "value" be defined satisfactorily so that it can be understood as a moving point in a range?
Or does "to be near" need to be added to the definition of "approach" so that it reads:
approach- 1. to come or to be near or nearer to: The cars slowed down as they approached the intersection. 2. to come or to be near to in quality, character, time, or condition; to come or to be within range for comparison: As a poet he hardly approaches Keats.
The paragraph is not understood with the following definition of "value" either:
a numerical quantity that is assigned or is determined by calculation or measurement
because once the quantity is assigned, for example 5, it is not subject to change; i.e. 5 does not ever become 6. So a value can never be said to be approaching another value.
(Whether or not the meaning of "value" according to the above definition also includes the state prior to the determination of the numerical quantity (and I'm wondering about this also) is not of consequence, since whatever it isn't yet still only corresponds to the singular quantity that will be determined in the future.)
Likewise, this definition doesn't help either:
value - Denomination (2) -->> a value or size of a series of values or sizes (as of money)
because even if a value is a constituent value of a series of values, it still can not be said to itself be changing or approaching.
definitions are from merriam-webster and dictionary.reference
If the answer is that dictionaries very often don't do all definitions justice, or that just the two dictionaries that I used don't (I don't know which answer is truer, but this one makes more sense to me, because I don't see why a dictionary shouldn't do as it purports to do), then I would like to know which answer it is, and also see an answer with sources that demonstrate this. If dictionaries don't cover all definitions I would like to know why there is a difference between the ones listed and the ones not listed. The fact that some definitions are more complex than others doesn't seem like a good enough reason for a comprehensive dictionary not to cover every single possible understanding of a word, because there are plenty of complex definitions that dictionaries do cover.
Therefore in my opinion the fact that certain definitions are missing indicates oversight or technical limitation, and certain comprehensive dictionaries should be revised. If a dictionary won't be revised because of technical limitations that doesn't mean theoretically it shouldn't be improved, it just means it technically can't be.(It's true that I haven't checked through all of the dictionaries out there myself, but I was hoping some people who have prior experience can give some insight as it's no simple feat.)
If that's the case it would not be accurate to say "the meaning is obvious" and "it's in such common use", because besides for the fact that they are not saying the same thing, offering them as an answer without any further explanation implies that my suggestion is never necessary in a dictionary. And if it's so obvious and in such common use, why is it not adequately represented in the above entries?!
There already have been a number of answers saying that "value" can be understood similarly to what I suggested above. Is that a dismissal of my suggestion of the definition of "approach", or is my suggestion as to the defintion of "approach" also true? The reason I ask is because if you are not dismissing my revised definition of "approach", there is not here (and perhaps never) a need to revise the definition of "value".
(Also, if all you can muster is "it's obvious" or "people use it all the time", then please refrain from writing, because not only is that not an answer and that does not help (it's quite obvious to me that what's obvious to one isn't necessarily obvious to another, and no amount of pontificating will change that) it's also pretty obvious to me that it also demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of my question, which takes those considerations into account.)