by FrediFizzx » Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:30 pm
minkwe wrote:Justo wrote:minkwe wrote:2. He's not an experimentalist, thus to test this relationship in the lab, contacts his friend who has designed a coin-reading machine. The machine works by accepting one of two settings (H=head or T=tail). A coin is tossed into an opening above the machine, causing a bell to ring if the coin comes up the same side as the setting.
Together, they perform an experiment, with the machine set to H. After 50 tosses, they get 40 rings. . They repeat the experiment with the setting at T and after 50 tosses, they get 35 rings.
What about this part, Amy objections?
Yes, first you did not answer a previous question. I asked if your reading machine influences the result of the coin toss. I assume that it does not, but since the results of your coin tosses contradict your assumption (2) we have doubts. I repeat that is why Richard Gill told you that you have to use probabilities conditional on the settings. He assumed that the machine setting biases the result.
The results or your experiments are P(H)=40/50=0.8 and P(T)=35/50=0.7 giving
 + P(T) = 1.5\neq 1)
, hence contradicticting your assumption (2).
Look, I copied this from page one of this thread. This is what I've been asking you to read carefully. In short, you now admit you didn't bother to read it. Otherwise how can you object to a statement of fact about the coin reading machine experiment on the basis that I didn't answer a question which is already clearly explained in the description you failed to read???
Apparently, Gill didn't read it either. Here is part three of the text from page 1:
3.
But, based on their results, they get _1 + P(T)_2 = 1.5 \neq 1)
violating the mathematician's relation. Astounding -- one of the two assumptions must be wrong. Either the coin does not have two sides, or probability theory is wrong they conclude!!! Or maybe counterfactual definiteness is wrong, they ponder. The side of the coin that was not measured does not exist they surmise!!!!Again any objections to this part?
4.
What happened? Their machine is always biased towards the setting they picked to measure, with H being a bit more biased (0.8 vs 0.5) than T (0.7 vs 0.5). This can easily happen without anything being wrong with the realism of coins, probability theory, or counterfactual definiteness. Despite their combined skill in mathematics and experimentation, they do not understand the difference between actual and counterfactual measurements and what it implies when you add them in a mathematical expression. They should read Boole's Conditions of Possible Experience. As you can see I already explained everything very clearly on page one of this thread. You didn't bother to read it despite repeated requests. That's why your replies and objections were not making sense. This is very troubling! I wonder how many articles you have reviewed and rejected without actually understanding the point being made.
Perhaps now is a good time to review the whole post to understand it before commenting and objecting to it.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=463#p12485
I guess Justo gave up on this. It is easy to see that the bound has to be 2 because there is a slight chance you could have all heads and all tails. Same with Bell's inequality. The real bound has to be 3 and for CHSH the real bound has to be 4.
.
[quote="minkwe"][quote="Justo"]
[quote="minkwe"]
2. [i]He's not an experimentalist, thus to test this relationship in the lab, contacts his friend who has designed a coin-reading machine. The machine works by accepting one of two settings (H=head or T=tail). A coin is tossed into an opening above the machine, causing a bell to ring if the coin comes up the same side as the setting.
Together, they perform an experiment, with the machine set to H. After 50 tosses, they get 40 rings. . They repeat the experiment with the setting at T and after 50 tosses, they get 35 rings.
[/i]
What about this part, Amy objections?[/quote]
Yes, first you did not answer a previous question. I asked if your reading machine influences the result of the coin toss. I assume that it does not, but since the results of your coin tosses contradict your assumption (2) we have doubts. I repeat that is why Richard Gill told you that you have to use probabilities conditional on the settings. He assumed that the machine setting biases the result.
The results or your experiments are P(H)=40/50=0.8 and P(T)=35/50=0.7 giving [tex]P(H) + P(T) = 1.5\neq 1[/tex], hence contradicticting your assumption (2).[/quote]
Look, I copied this from page one of this thread. This is what I've been asking you to read carefully. In short, you now admit you didn't bother to read it. Otherwise how can you object to a statement of fact about the coin reading machine experiment on the basis that I didn't answer a question which is already clearly explained in the description you failed to read???
Apparently, Gill didn't read it either. Here is part three of the text from page 1:
3.
[i]
But, based on their results, they get [tex]P(H)_1 + P(T)_2 = 1.5 \neq 1[/tex] violating the mathematician's relation. Astounding -- one of the two assumptions must be wrong. Either the coin does not have two sides, or probability theory is wrong they conclude!!! Or maybe counterfactual definiteness is wrong, they ponder. The side of the coin that was not measured does not exist they surmise!!!![/i]
Again any objections to this part?
4.
[i]What happened? Their machine is always biased towards the setting they picked to measure, with H being a bit more biased (0.8 vs 0.5) than T (0.7 vs 0.5). This can easily happen without anything being wrong with the realism of coins, probability theory, or counterfactual definiteness. Despite their combined skill in mathematics and experimentation, they do not understand the difference between actual and counterfactual measurements and what it implies when you add them in a mathematical expression. They should read Boole's Conditions of Possible Experience. [/i]
As you can see I already explained everything very clearly on page one of this thread. You didn't bother to read it despite repeated requests. That's why your replies and objections were not making sense. This is very troubling! I wonder how many articles you have reviewed and rejected without actually understanding the point being made.
Perhaps now is a good time to review the whole post to understand it before commenting and objecting to it. http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=463#p12485[/quote]
I guess Justo gave up on this. It is easy to see that the bound has to be 2 because there is a slight chance you could have all heads and all tails. Same with Bell's inequality. The real bound has to be 3 and for CHSH the real bound has to be 4.
.
