Coming Soon!

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:36 am

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Thanks. It is now very clear. John Reed's strawman code is non-local, whereas Fred Diether's original code is local. Nice demonstration!

Fred *says* his code is local. He has no evidence, no proof, no argument. Joy can’t read Mathematica, but fantasizes that Fred has understood his *physics* intuition. John and Richard have *proved* that the code is nonlocal, according to any sensible meaning of the word.

Fred may have stumbled upon an interesting new class of detection loophole models but as long as he can’t write decent pseudo-code explaining his algorithm in such a way that interested scientists can program it in other languages, there will be no further progress.

And Gill, as usual, spews out nonsense after nonsense after nonsense, ad nauseam......
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2719
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:14 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Thanks. It is now very clear. John Reed's strawman code is non-local, whereas Fred Diether's original code is local. Nice demonstration!

Fred *says* his code is local. He has no evidence, no proof, no argument. Joy can’t read Mathematica, but fantasizes that Fred has understood his *physics* intuition. John and Richard have *proved* that the code is nonlocal, according to any sensible meaning of the word.

Fred may have stumbled upon an interesting new class of detection loophole models but as long as he can’t write decent pseudo-code explaining his algorithm in such a way that interested scientists can program it in other languages, there will be no further progress.

And Gill, as usual, spews out nonsense after nonsense after nonsense, ad nauseam......
.

Yep, Gill is really good at spewing nonsense. These Bell fanatics will never admit defeat. But we expected that. Now, what the heck was I doing before all the nonsense?
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby jreed » Wed Sep 15, 2021 2:19 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
jreed wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
jreed wrote: ... I've been working on a quaternion program for a few days. Here is what I came up with.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q1.nb

It's the same logic as the vector code, which is what I expected.

Nope! You changed the code in the A and B Do-loops to make your old non-local strawman. I said you weren't allowed to change the code in the A and B Do-loops.

You can't make a non-local strawman now with the new A and B Do-loop code, can you? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol:
.

Please explain which A and B Do loops you are talking about. There are two. The first where the trials are generated, and the second where they are analyzed. Also tell me why I am not allowed to change the code. Is there some rule I violated? I want to know so the cyber cops don't come after me. :lol:

You know what you did to make a non-local strawman. Don't pretend like you don't know. If you change the code it is your strawman model not ours. The cyber cops are comin' to get you. Bad boy! Bad boy! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.

You didn't answer my question. I repeat: Which loop is it that I'm not allowed to change, the first loop that generates the data, or the second loop that changes that data? I really don't understand what you're talking about. Please excuse my ignorance, but do try to be more explicit instead of just saying "you know what you did". I don't know what I did. What part of my code is not correct?
jreed
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:10 pm

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Sep 15, 2021 4:50 pm

fg=f or g Bad boy! Bad boy! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby Heinera » Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:23 am

It's trivial to find the non-locality in Fred's code, even without the aid of jreed's very nice simplification. This is just like the situation with Esail's model; everyone can see the non-locality except the authors themselves.
Heinera
 
Posts: 902
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:35 am

Heinera wrote:It's trivial to find the non-locality in Fred's code, even without the aid of jreed's very nice simplification. This is just like the situation with Esail's model; everyone can see the non-locality except the authors themselves.

:lol: Yes, we are very good tricksters. What you think is non-locality is really not. That is why John can't do a non-local strawman now, without adding code to the first A and B Do-loops.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:39 am

Another Mathematica code minor update. Just cleaned out some things not being used anymore and updated the spinorial sign changes. The Cloud file,

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... c-forum.nb

Other files,

EPRsims/newCS-22-S3quat-prodcalc-forum.pdf
EPRsims/newCS-22-S3quat-prodcalc-forum.nb

Enjoy the awesomeness of the simulation that kills Bell's junk physics theory and Gill's junk theory!!! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby jreed » Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:06 am

FrediFizzx wrote:fg=f or g Bad boy! Bad boy! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.


I don't know why that's illegal and I expect you can't explain it either. However, I will fix it up so that the check for a failed or good trial is done in the second loop. Then we'll see what you can come up with. I'm kind of stubborn and I will keep pestering you until you admit that your simulation is certainly non-local, as it must be.
jreed
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:10 pm

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:28 am

jreed wrote:
I'm kind of stubborn and I will keep pestering you until you admit that your simulation is certainly non-local, ...

That is excellent. We are also keen to bring you back to the good force from the dark side, and the best way to do that is that you yourself realize that you were only hunting for a snark.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2719
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Sep 16, 2021 7:03 am

jreed wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:fg=f or g Bad boy! Bad boy! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.


I don't know why that's illegal and I expect you can't explain it either. However, I will fix it up so that the check for a failed or good trial is done in the second loop. Then we'll see what you can come up with. I'm kind of stubborn and I will keep pestering you until you admit that your simulation is certainly non-local, as it must be.

It's not illegal if you just want to make your old non-local strawman. It has nothing to do with our local model. I already told you a bunch of times, I've got a much better non-local model than yours. Why "as it must be"? You yourself disproved Bell's theory when you did the first quaternion model. Do you really think there is something special about Gill's theory? There isn't and we now have the proof there isn't anything special about it since he really never had any proof that it was. Gull's theory is a joke.

Right off the bat, we are more than 95 percent local not considering the spinorial sign changes. Considering that the spinorial sign changes are completely local, with them we are 100 percent local. So, it basically comes down to that you don't accept the spinorial sign changes. But even if you don't given Gill's 2 trial test, we are 99.998 percent local. Seems like a pretty significant amount of localness. What are you going to do about that? What is Gill going to about that? And..., the answer is; NOTHING. There is nothing you Bell fanatics can do about that simple fact except admit defeat! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby jreed » Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:09 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
jreed wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:fg=f or g Bad boy! Bad boy! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.


I don't know why that's illegal and I expect you can't explain it either. However, I will fix it up so that the check for a failed or good trial is done in the second loop. Then we'll see what you can come up with. I'm kind of stubborn and I will keep pestering you until you admit that your simulation is certainly non-local, as it must be.

It's not illegal if you just want to make your old non-local strawman. It has nothing to do with our local model. I already told you a bunch of times, I've got a much better non-local model than yours. Why "as it must be"? You yourself disproved Bell's theory when you did the first quaternion model. Do you really think there is something special about Gill's theory? There isn't and we now have the proof there isn't anything special about it since he really never had any proof that it was. Gull's theory is a joke.

Right off the bat, we are more than 95 percent local not considering the spinorial sign changes. Considering that the spinorial sign changes are completely local, with them we are 100 percent local. So, it basically comes down to that you don't accept the spinorial sign changes. But even if you don't given Gill's 2 trial test, we are 99.998 percent local. Seems like a pretty significant amount of localness. What are you going to do about that? What is Gill going to about that? And..., the answer is; NOTHING. There is nothing you Bell fanatics can do about that simple fact except admit defeat! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol:
.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q2.nb
Here is a version without f & g. The output remains the same. Why do you keep calling my version a strawman? My code does exactly the same thing as yours, except in a simple and transparent manner. But to believe that you would have to admit your code is also non-local, which it is of course. I always knew it was non-local before I looked closely at it because any program that comes up with a CHSH > 2 must be.
I think I would like to discuss that quaternion program I wrote a while back. I don't think it disproves Bell.
jreed
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:10 pm

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:22 pm

jreed wrote: ... https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q2.nb
Here is a version without f & g. The output remains the same. Why do you keep calling my version a strawman? My code does exactly the same thing as yours, except in a simple and transparent manner. But to believe that you would have to admit your code is also non-local, which it is of course. I always knew it was non-local before I looked closely at it because any program that comes up with a CHSH > 2 must be.
I think I would like to discuss that quaternion program I wrote a while back. I don't think it disproves Bell.

Ah, you finally figured out how to do another strawman with basically the same as fg= f or g. Good for you. I guess I will have to now take element 5 out of the table rows. No problem for our local code. Your code does not do the exactly the same thing as the local code. You don't use the trial numbers (HV) for matching for starters. Your strawman is most blatantly non-local which I already have a much better model. And LOL! If you can't see that your quaternion code kills Bell, then you are beyond help and a true Bell fanatic. I guess we are done unless you want to try Gill's type of 2 trial tests. Go ahead and try some other angles for the 3 angles. If you do them all, you will find that our local code is 99.998 percent local. And guess what? There is NOTHING you can do about it except admit defeat. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:19 pm

For John,

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... or-John.nb

Ok, now try to do another strawman with element 5 gone. It was only there for the Product Calculation which I took out for this. Remember, no changing the code in the first A and B Do-loops or you will just make another strawman.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Sep 16, 2021 5:40 pm

Yo John, I take back what I said about your original quaternion code. You were right, It didn't shoot down Bell because you forgot to put in the singlet particle pair. Here is the original.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... od_calc.nb

Here it is fixed so that it does shoot down Bell's junk physics theory.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... c_fixed.nb

Enjoy!
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby gill1109 » Fri Sep 17, 2021 12:57 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
jreed wrote: ... https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q2.nb
Here is a version without f & g. The output remains the same. Why do you keep calling my version a strawman? My code does exactly the same thing as yours, except in a simple and transparent manner. But to believe that you would have to admit your code is also non-local, which it is of course. I always knew it was non-local before I looked closely at it because any program that comes up with a CHSH > 2 must be.
I think I would like to discuss that quaternion program I wrote a while back. I don't think it disproves Bell.

Ah, you finally figured out how to do another strawman with basically the same as fg= f or g. Good for you. I guess I will have to now take element 5 out of the table rows. No problem for our local code. Your code does not do the exactly the same thing as the local code. You don't use the trial numbers (HV) for matching for starters. Your strawman is most blatantly non-local which I already have a much better model. And LOL! If you can't see that your quaternion code kills Bell, then you are beyond help and a true Bell fanatic. I guess we are done unless you want to try Gill's type of 2 trial tests. Go ahead and try some other angles for the 3 angles. If you do them all, you will find that our local code is 99.998 percent local. And guess what? There is NOTHING you can do about it except admit defeat. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol:
.

John’s code does not “do” exactly the same as Fred’s, because Fred’s does a lot of stuff which is completely superfluous. John’s code *does* get exactly the same results as Fred’s, up to rounding errors.

These are two different algorithms which numerically implement the same function.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:14 am

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
jreed wrote: ... https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q2.nb
Here is a version without f & g. The output remains the same. Why do you keep calling my version a strawman? My code does exactly the same thing as yours, except in a simple and transparent manner. But to believe that you would have to admit your code is also non-local, which it is of course. I always knew it was non-local before I looked closely at it because any program that comes up with a CHSH > 2 must be.
I think I would like to discuss that quaternion program I wrote a while back. I don't think it disproves Bell.

Ah, you finally figured out how to do another strawman with basically the same as fg= f or g. Good for you. I guess I will have to now take element 5 out of the table rows. No problem for our local code. Your code does not do the exactly the same thing as the local code. You don't use the trial numbers (HV) for matching for starters. Your strawman is most blatantly non-local which I already have a much better model. And LOL! If you can't see that your quaternion code kills Bell, then you are beyond help and a true Bell fanatic. I guess we are done unless you want to try Gill's type of 2 trial tests. Go ahead and try some other angles for the 3 angles. If you do them all, you will find that our local code is 99.998 percent local. And guess what? There is NOTHING you can do about it except admit defeat. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol:
.

John’s code does not “do” exactly the same as Fred’s, because Fred’s does a lot of stuff which is completely superfluous. John’s code *does* get exactly the same results as Fred’s, up to rounding errors.

These are two different algorithms which numerically implement the same function.

The difference is that John Reed's code is nonlocal whereas Fred Diether's code is local. The reason for this difference is that John Reed deliberately sets out to make Fred's code nonlocal.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2719
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 17, 2021 1:48 am

gill1109 wrote:These are two different algorithms which numerically implement the same function.

Absolutely NOT! Only a nonsense spewing crazed maniac would say that and think that is true.

Why don't you figure out how to do something useful? You said you had Mathematica again now, so do more 2 trial test with more angles and see what you get. If you do them all, you will find that our simulation is 99.998 percent local and there is NOTHING you can do about it except admit defeat. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby gill1109 » Fri Sep 17, 2021 5:47 am

I will investigate the mathematical nonlocality of the analytical function implemented in Mathematica code by both Fred and John.
Last edited by FrediFizzx on Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: nonsense deleted
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2692
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:11 am

gill1109 wrote:I will investigate the mathematical nonlocality of the analytical function implemented in Mathematica code by both Fred and John.

Good. Maybe you can get John to help you automate your 2 trial test and find out our code is 99.998 percent local without the spinorial sign changes which makes our code 100 percent local. NOTHING you can do about it except cry like a baby! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2686
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby jreed » Fri Sep 17, 2021 10:52 am

FrediFizzx wrote:For John,

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... or-John.nb

Ok, now try to do another strawman with element 5 gone. It was only there for the Product Calculation which I took out for this. Remember, no changing the code in the first A and B Do-loops or you will just make another strawman.
.

Here is a version developed from your latest one. This one was more interesting. I await your next attempt, it''s lots of fun.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Q3.nb
jreed
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gill1109 and 7 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library