SciPhysicsForums.com

by **Joy Christian** » Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:38 am

.
The accounts of my academic career, in private and public web pages, are all perfectly fine. The only person who has issues with them is you, because of your sick obsession with me. I suggest you get your own life in order rather than worrying about mine.

You hounded IEEE for two years about bogus plagiarism claims against me. IEEE finally had enough of your nonsense and threw out your fallacious claims after I provided all the dates.

I did not adapt your code. You stole the code from Michel Fodje, translated it into R, and claimed it to be your own. It is all documented here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111&p=4672#p4666.
.

by **gill1109** » Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:08 am

Joy Christian wrote:.
You do all that. That will only make you look like a fool. I have no interest in my reputation whatsoever. My interest is only in exposing your antics which by now many people, including some participants of this forum (such as Justo and "local") as well as some other prominent figures elsewhere (such as my friend Sabine Hossenfelder) know about. Don't forget that you have left some twenty years of trail behind you. So far you have had dealings only with gentle and mild-mannered academics such as Prof. Karl Hess. No academic has dared to bite back. But I was born near the ashram of and trained by the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi. And we know how to deal with bullies in all walks of life. We bite back in our own ways. So let the war begin!
Reference: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=480#p13277.

Karl Hess is not mild mannered!

I have had big fights with some famous academics (to mention just two: Peter Nijkamp, economist, former chair of the Netherlands Science Foundation; Frank van der Duyn Schouten, mathematician, the only person who has been ‘rector magnificus’ at three Dutch Universities). And survived very well, thank you.

It’s nice that we both have friendly relations with Sabine, and probably with quite a few other respected scientists. It’s a pity you dropped out of the conference I was organising with Sabine and some other mutual friends, designed to give you a star spot and an open debate. It’s good there will be some kind of debate at Brno.

I’m afraid your own credibility is not very good. I suggest you clean up your accounts of your academic career on academic and professional social media.

IEEE dropped their plagiarism investigation at the same time as I dropped my formal plagiarism complaint. They certainly did not decide in your favour, since they couldn’t verify your claims, either. I was always delighted that you adopted my code and (parts of) my implementation of the Pearle model. I do think that your presentation of it is factually/scientifically incorrect. I did not “improve” Michel’s implementation of your model. IEEE gives me the opportunity to present my picture of those computer simulations. I think the subject will be closed when all Comments and Replies to Comments to your two IEEE Access papers and your RSOS paper have come out. I regret now that I turned down the requests to review those original papers. I was tired of being the “go to” address for editors wanting to have your submissions reviewed. I don’t do it any more.

by **Joy Christian** » Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:42 am

.
You do all that. That will only make you look like a fool. I have no interest in my reputation whatsoever. My interest is only in exposing your antics which by now many people, including some participants of this forum (such as Justo and "local") as well as some other prominent figures elsewhere (such as my friend Sabine Hossenfelder) know about. Don't forget that you have left some twenty years of trail behind you. So far you have had dealings only with gentle and mild-mannered academics such as Prof. Karl Hess. No academic has dared to bite back. But I was born near the ashram of and trained by the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi. And we know how to deal with bullies in all walks of life. We bite back in our own ways. So let the war begin!

Reference: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=480#p13277.

.

by **gill1109** » Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:50 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:.
Laugh as much as you like, but you are a habitual stealer, as has been documented many times in this forum: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111&p=4672#p4666

I hear the pot calling the kettle black …

Remember “Good Artists Copy; Great Artists Steal”.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/06/artists-steal/

You can make whatever claims you like. If your paper submitted to IEEE Access is accepted and published, then I plan to complain to IEEE that your paper contains fallacious claims of priority without giving me and Michel Fodje proper credit for our respective works. Remember that my Annals of Physics paper was first published on arXiv at least a year before yours: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355v1. Remember also that IEEE already has my detailed document containing all the dates and priorities of various people over your papers published in 2015 and 2020 and they have already dismissed your priority claims recognizing the priority of my paper, my simulation codes, and Michel Fodje's simulation code, which was published in 2013, two years before yours. You have been asking for this fight for years. You are now going to get it. I am just waiting for your paper to be officially published in IEEE Access. I will then be requesting full retraction on the grounds of false priority claims made in it. I will then complain to Entropy concering your paper published there in 2020, on the grounds of plagiarism.
.

You do that, Joy! Let the battle commence!

I have quite a lot of documentation of your own antics which, following advice from senior members of the Royal Society of London and from Oxford University, I will report to the UK Research Integrity Office, https://ukrio.org/. I have some nice documentation from the Registrar of Oxford University (three FOI requests) which I will put on line, one of these days. I'm afraid that your reputation for scientific integrity is not terribly good. Your repeated attacks on me keep making it worse. Please let's focus on the science and on the mathematics.

How are your preparations for Brno coming on?

by **Joy Christian** » Thu Sep 02, 2021 10:22 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:.
Laugh as much as you like, but you are a habitual stealer, as has been documented many times in this forum: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111&p=4672#p4666

I hear the pot calling the kettle black …

Remember “Good Artists Copy; Great Artists Steal”.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/06/artists-steal/

You can make whatever claims you like. If your paper submitted to IEEE Access is accepted and published, then I plan to complain to IEEE that your paper contains fallacious claims of priority without giving me and Michel Fodje proper credit for our respective works. Remember that my Annals of Physics paper was first published on arXiv at least a year before yours: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355v1. Remember also that IEEE already has my detailed document containing all the dates and priorities of various people over your papers published in 2015 and 2020 and they have already dismissed your priority claims recognizing the priority of my paper, my simulation codes, and Michel Fodje's simulation code, which was published in 2013, two years before yours. You have been asking for this fight for years. You are now going to get it. I am just waiting for your paper to be officially published in IEEE Access. I will then be requesting full retraction on the grounds of false priority claims made in it. I will then complain to Entropy concering your paper published there in 2020, on the grounds of plagiarism.
.

by **gill1109** » Thu Sep 02, 2021 9:28 am

Joy Christian wrote:.
Laugh as much as you like, but you are a habitual stealer, as has been documented many times in this forum: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111&p=4672#p4666

I hear the pot calling the kettle black …

Remember “Good Artists Copy; Great Artists Steal”.
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/03/06/artists-steal/

by **Joy Christian** » Thu Sep 02, 2021 8:21 am

.
Laugh as much as you like, but you are a habitual stealer, as has been documented many times in this forum: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111&p=4672#p4666
.

by **gill1109** » Thu Sep 02, 2021 7:44 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
John certainly should understand the code for the quaternions as some of it came from him.

I thought the code with quaternions originally came from Chantal Roth: https://rpubs.com/chenopodium/516072.

However, it was several years ago so I have forgotten who did the code with the quaternions first.

In case Chantal did it first, then we should give her credit in the code and the paper when we update the paper with the new code.
.

Chantal’s code which you cite here computes (a b + b a)/2 by simulation, where a and b are real unit-length 3-vectors and their product is their GA product. Yes, one can compute a.b in that way. It is the fundamental formula in the GA of R^3. One writes (a b + b a)/2 = 0.5 a b + 0.5 b a, and then interprets “0.5” as a probability, and the whole formula as an expectation value. You can ask Chantal if you don’t believe me!

I understand that John Reed converted Michel’s simulation to Mathematica. Michel’s Python simulations were developed by him completely independently of anybody else’s work, if I understood him correctly. No doubt, Chantal has also looked at them.

Whatever. You didn't do anything original. You just like to take false credit for other people's hard work and then make bogus claims of plagiarism: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=472#p12894
.

I naturally like to point it out, when other people plagiarise my work. But anyway: “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery”, so I’m also flattered when it happens.

My original work in this context was to study Pearle’s paper on the detection loophole, correct the errors, and publish a simulation program based on it, on Rpubs. I brought it to Joy’s attention here on Fred’s forum. Finally that led to this published paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04431

Regarding Michel’s simulation programs, I analysed them in the preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00106. I showed that the statistics of the data generated by his programs were compatible with J-Å. Larsson’s modified CHSH inequalities, taking account of detector inefficiency (epr-simple), and the coincidence loophole (epr-clocked). As Karl Hess later pointed out, the coincidence loophole was first identified in 1986 by Saverio PASCAZIO: TIME AND BELL-TYPE INEQUALITIES, PHYSICS LETTERS A 29 September 1986, Volume 118, number 2.

by **gill1109** » Thu Sep 02, 2021 7:28 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
For the record: “The case was investigated and discussed at length with the EIC, IEEE Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Office and myself. Ultimately, the dates, information, and data do not provide sufficient evidence for IEEE to pursue this matter further. Since you have already submitted a comment article to address your technical concerns about the IEEE Access article, we consider this matter to be closed.”

The false allegations of plagiarism against me by Gill were DISMISSED by IEEE because of lack of merit. The case, therefore, did not warrant further investigation and closed by IEEE.

On the other hand, the case that Gill stole Michel Fodje's simulation code, translated it into R, called it "Pearle's detection loophole model", and published it, is very much OPEN.
.

by **Joy Christian** » Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:46 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
John certainly should understand the code for the quaternions as some of it came from him.

I thought the code with quaternions originally came from Chantal Roth: https://rpubs.com/chenopodium/516072.

However, it was several years ago so I have forgotten who did the code with the quaternions first.

In case Chantal did it first, then we should give her credit in the code and the paper when we update the paper with the new code.
.

Chantal’s code which you cite here computes (a b + b a)/2 by simulation, where a and b are real unit-length 3-vectors and their product is their GA product. Yes, one can compute a.b in that way. It is the fundamental formula in the GA of R^3. One writes (a b + b a)/2 = 0.5 a b + 0.5 b a, and then interprets “0.5” as a probability, and the whole formula as an expectation value. You can ask Chantal if you don’t believe me!

I understand that John Reed converted Michel’s simulation to Mathematica. Michel’s Python simulations were developed by him completely independently of anybody else’s work, if I understood him correctly. No doubt, Chantal has also looked at them.

Whatever. You didn't do anything original. You just like to take false credit for other people's hard work and then make bogus claims of plagiarism: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=472#p12894
.

by **gill1109** » Thu Sep 02, 2021 6:27 am

Joy Christian wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
John certainly should understand the code for the quaternions as some of it came from him.

I thought the code with quaternions originally came from Chantal Roth: https://rpubs.com/chenopodium/516072.

However, it was several years ago so I have forgotten who did the code with the quaternions first.

In case Chantal did it first, then we should give her credit in the code and the paper when we update the paper with the new code.
.

Chantal’s code which you cite here computes (a b + b a)/2 by simulation, where a and b are real unit-length 3-vectors and their product is their GA product. Yes, one can compute a.b in that way. It is the fundamental formula in the GA of R^3. One writes (a b + b a)/2 = 0.5 a b + 0.5 b a, and then interprets “0.5” as a probability, and the whole formula as an expectation value. You can ask Chantal if you don’t believe me!

I understand that John Reed converted Michel’s simulation to Mathematica. Michel’s Python simulations were developed by him completely independently of anybody else’s work, if I understood him correctly. No doubt, Chantal has also looked at them.

by **Joy Christian** » Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:08 pm

gill1109 wrote:
For the record: “The case was investigated and discussed at length with the EIC, IEEE Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Office and myself. Ultimately, the dates, information, and data do not provide sufficient evidence for IEEE to pursue this matter further. Since you have already submitted a comment article to address your technical concerns about the IEEE Access article, we consider this matter to be closed.”

The false allegations of plagiarism against me by Gill were DISMISSED by IEEE because of lack of merit. The case, therefore, did not warrant further investigation and closed by IEEE.

On the other hand, the case that Gill stole Michel Fodje's simulation code, translated it into R, called it "Pearle's detection loophole model", and published it, is very much OPEN.
.

by **gill1109** » Fri Mar 19, 2021 5:26 pm

For the record: “The case was investigated and discussed at length with the EIC, IEEE Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Office and myself. Ultimately, the dates, information, and data do not provide sufficient evidence for IEEE to pursue this matter further. Since you have already submitted a comment article to address your technical concerns about the IEEE Access article, we consider this matter to be closed.”

by **gill1109** » Thu Mar 18, 2021 11:35 pm

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9380450
Now onward, with the Joy's other IEEE Access paper, and his RSOS paper. Some squabbling about my Entropy paper soon to be concluded, too. Meantime my paper on Gull's proof of Bell's theorem is nearing completion.

by **Joy Christian** » Mon Mar 15, 2021 5:39 am

.
I would like to record here an example of how effortlessly and knowingly Richard D. Gill makes false claims and false statements.

In one of his papers in the journal Entropy, of which he (at least for now) is one of the editors, he makes the following claim regarding my paper published in Royal Society Open Science:

Richard D. Gill wrote:
I wrote complaining that my computer code had been stolen. A committee is evaluating the paper and an “expression of concern” has been posted. I have the impression that the journal is
just waiting for the problem to go away.

But the first two statements above by Gill contain outright, demonstrable, and provable falsehoods.

To begin with, he never wrote to RSOS complaining that his "computer code had been stolen", at least not up to the time of publication of his Entropy paper. The editors of RSOS have been kind and gentlemanly enough to share with me every complaint they have received regarding my paper. There has been no mention of a stolen computer code in the complaints.

Secondly, the official "expression of concern" published by RSOS, as well as its follow-up, says absolutely nothing about any stolen computer code. Because there was no such complaint, and, to begin with, I never stole or plagiarized anyone's computer code.

Finally, the only computer simulations that are included or cited in my RSOS paper are based on GAViewer. They were first written down by Alber Jan Wonnink and later improved by Fred Diether. As far as I know, Gill has never written a single computer program based on GAViewer in his life. Therefore, he does not have an iota of more claim on the codes published or cited in my RSOS paper than I have a claim on Buckingham Palace.

What is astonishing is that Gill knows very well that he has no claim over any GAViewer code and still publishes an allegation in a journal that I stole his computer code in my RSOS paper. He engages in such falsehoods about me as a part of his systematic nine-year-long campaign of character assassination.
.

by **FrediFizzx** » Sat Mar 13, 2021 5:53 pm

You can see from the histogram that most of the action is from 0 to 0.5. That is why 0 to 1/2 works as well.
.

by **FrediFizzx** » Fri Mar 12, 2021 10:01 pm

Of course it is pretty easy to incorporate the singlet vector into the Pearle function.

Not sure if that means anything special though beyond eliminating an extra variable. Probably not.
.

by **gill1109** » Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:25 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:Yeah, the Pearle function isn't even necessary. I think it makes more physical sense to generate the hidden variable from the singlet vector.

Exactly! Now we’re cool. 8-)

by **FrediFizzx** » Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:42 am

Yeah, the Pearle function isn't even necessary. I think it makes more physical sense to generate the hidden variable from the singlet vector.
.

by **Joy Christian** » Thu Mar 11, 2021 10:53 pm

gill1109 wrote:
I do not claim intent to deceive.

I, on the other hand, explicitly claim that Richard David Gill is lying with intent to deceive. Gill is now actively engaged in deceiving the physics community right here, online, once again, as he has been doing for the past nine years regarding my work on Bell's theorem. I have recorded here plenty of times the underhand tactics used by Gill and his friends to undermine my work on Bell's theorem: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=183&p=5995#p5995

For the record, I have not touched my RPubs simulations in over seven years, and it says so on the pages that Gill claims I have "rewritten." Proof: https://rpubs.com/jjc/13965

The bottom line is this: Gill stole Michel Fodje's "EPR-simple" simulation (published in 2013), translated it into R, and called it "Pearle's detection loophole model." This is all on record, for everyone to see: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111&p=4672#p4666

Then, Gill had the audacity to allege that I had plagiarized his code and complained about it to IEEE many months ago. And now that his bogus allegation is thrown out by IEEE after a thorough investigation, and once again he has failed to have one of my papers retracted, he is now engaged in backpaddling and pretending that he withdrew his allegation. Pathetic!
.

SciPhysicsForums.com

IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against me

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against me

Re: IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against

Re: IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against

Re: IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against

Re: IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against

Re: IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against

Re: IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against

Re: IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against

Re: Coming Soon!

Re: IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against

Re: Coming Soon!

Re: Coming Soon!

Re: IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against

Re: IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against

Re: IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against

Re: IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against

Re: IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against

Re: IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against

Re: IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against

Re: IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against

Re: IEEE has dismissed Gill's plagiarism allegation against