SciPhysicsForums.com

[quote="Xray"]
For N small, your theorem implies that a Probability Pr is greater than or equal to a negative number. Would you, as a stats person, call this a tautology; or nonsense?

For N large, your theorem implies that the probability of a certainty [eg, Pr(1.9999 ≤ 2)] is greater than or equal to near zero. Would you, as a stats person, call this a tautology; or nonsense?
...

(With apologies if I've missed something.)
[/quote]
You've missed something, indeed. Every true mathematical theorem is a tautology.

[quote="gill1109"][quote="Xray"].
PS: WE are trying to shoot the subject essay down. Blanks won't do! We need focussed specifics.
[/quote]
Explain to me what is wrong not with Bell's original derivations but with my Theorem 1 in [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5103[/url], Section 2.[/quote]

If you are referring to equation (3), [u]a quick look suggests here is what is wrong with your theorem[/u]:

For N small, your theorem implies that a Probability Pr is greater than or equal to a negative number. Would you, as a stats person, call this a tautology; or nonsense?

For N large, your theorem implies that the probability of a certainty [eg, Pr(1.9999 ≤ 2)] is greater than or equal to near zero. Would you, as a stats person, call this a tautology; or nonsense?

Perhaps you are trying to duplicate the [u]Bellian and CHSH-style absurdities[/u] shown-up in Gordon Watson's essay?

Clearly, you must try harder. Otherwise: What is the relevance of your theorem?

Also: In case my quick look is inaccurate (I'm late for a meeting); or, better please: [u]Please provide a plot of RHS (3) for 4 < N < 50[/u].

PS: Maybe my hurry here is heading me for trouble, but as I was closing your paper I noticed (5) under the condition N --> infinity and something to do with Vongehr.

Well in (5) it appears that your theorem implies: The Probability of a near impossibility is less than one-half! Would you, as a stats person, call this a tautology; or nonsense?

[b]At least you can take comfort that Bell and CHSH-style results are absurdities of a higher order[/b]. (With apologies if I've missed something.)

[quote="Xray"].
PS: WE are trying to shoot the subject essay down. Blanks won't do! We need focussed specifics.
[/quote]
Anyone who wants to can try to shoot the subject essay down.

Here are some focussed specifics:

Anyone who thinks they understand Gordon Watson's viXra essay and believe that it is right, are now in an excellent position to try to win Sascha Vongehr's quantum Randi challenge or try to win my variant version, [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5103[/url], Section 9. 1 000 Euro says you can't. Match it, or like to raise it?

Alternatively, having now understood the subject so well, thanks to Gordon Watson's viXra essay, (a) rewrite it so it's comprehensible and post a new short sweet clear version on viXra; and (b) explain to me what is wrong not with Bell's original derivations but with my Theorem 1 in [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5103[/url], Section 2.

.
Context: I am looking for critical comments on this essay: Commonsense local realism refutes Bell's theorem - http://vixra.org/pdf/1403.0089v3.pdf
.
The topic is here: http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=49 and I quote Richard Gill from there:
.
[quote="gill1109"][quote="Xray"]
4. Richard, in that you've gotten to (19)-(22): that presumably means that you've seen Bell's first fundamental error explicitly identified and corrected. You've seen the nonsense in CHSH explicitly identified and corrected. So we need to be serious in defining issues that we want clarified -- because this looks like serious business to me.
[/quote]
This does not look like serious business to me. This looks like a sadly typical viXra paper. I did not see Bell's first fundamental error explicitly identified and corrected. I do not need anything clarified.

Regarding notation, it would help if every different equivalence relation is identified as such, for instance by adorning the tilde symbol with a varying subscript. If the author has got something very simple and transparent to say let him say it in a simple and transparent manner. Drop all the fancy words and the fancy symbols which mainly go to show that the author is imitating inpenetrable mathematical texts, not trying to actually communicate mathematical ideas of substance. As far as I can see, by commonsense local realism the author means what most people mean by local realism, and hence any of the usual proofs of the CHSH inequality (for instance) can be run through, routinely.

If anyone thinks they understand this paper and think the author is right, then they should easily be able to win instant recognition and undying fame by winning the quantum Randi challenge or any similar challenge by simply converting the theory into a computer simulation script.[/quote]

In reply:

1. These were my words: "… you've seen Bell's first fundamental error explicitly identified and corrected". In the author's words; page 5. "So here's a new (and the first valid) Bell-inequality:
Bell 1964:(14b) [size=150]≠[/size] Bell 1964: (14a); eqn. (10)." Since the notation here is very simple and concise, with no fancy words: Please show me why this NEW inequality is false.

2. To be very clear: Bell's theorem of 1964 ORIGINATED WITH and relies on (it is fundamentally based on) on an error; ie, Bell's ambit claim that Bell 1964:(14b) [size=150]=[/size] Bell 1964: (14a). Am I mistaken?

3. You cite CHSH… routinely. BUT CHSH is explicitly refuted on the same page 5: thereby reinforcing the author's eqn. (10) on the same page. Please show me why this CHSH refutation is false. I can't fault it!

4. You write: "As far as I [Richard Gill] can see, by commonsense local realism [CLR] the author means what most people mean by local realism." Now the author explicitly defines CLR in clear terms. [u]So all you have to do is supply [Einstein excepted] several equivalent definitions (with precise sources) of "local realism" from the extensive literature on the subject[/u]. These I would welcome because no such definition is known to me. (Note here how you somewhat overstate/weaken your case by saying "as far as you can see … most people" yet you provide not one supportive claim? We can't leave blanks here where the debate -- that you bring -- demands content.)

PS: WE are trying to shoot the subject essay down. Blanks won't do! We need focussed specifics.