Coming Soon!

[FrediFizzx]

@jreed

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&p=14587#p14587

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&p=14554#p14554
.

It's ironic that the "spinoral sign change" that you say makes the calculation 100% local is actually inserting the non-localities needed to violate the CHSH inequality and give the cosine output curve.

That is pure nonsense. Show me the "non-localities" in the analytical prescription presented in our paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/2.

Actually it is these analytical prescriptions. We've got to get the paper updated soon.



.

[FrediFizzx]

@jreed

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&p=14587#p14587

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&p=14554#p14554
.

It's ironic that the "spinoral sign change" that you say makes the calculation 100% local is actually inserting the non-localities needed to violate the CHSH inequality and give the cosine output curve.

Why would that be "ironic"? I told you already that it comes down to either accepting the spinorial sign changes or not accepting them. We accept them and they are 100 percent local making our simulation 100 percent local. Even if you don't accept them, we are 99.998 percent local. And there is NOTHING you can do about that fact except cry.
.

[jreed]

Recently I mentioned the first quaternion program I wrote a while back. Fred added some stuff to it that didn't seem to make much difference. Now I have found the reason I always thought it didn't apply to the Bell discussions. Here is a notebook to check out:

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Qtest1.nb

Notice that the inner product values fall exactly on top of the quaternion calculated values.

enjoy!

[Joy Christian]

Notice that the inner product values fall exactly on top of the quaternion calculated values.

But of course they do. So what? That is the model.

But it is unlikely that you will ever understand that. Gill, the so-called professor of mathematical statistics, has spent ten years on it and still does not understand the physical model.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Recently I mentioned the first quaternion program I wrote a while back. Fred added some stuff to it that didn't seem to make much difference. Now I have found the reason I always thought it didn't apply to the Bell discussions. Here is a notebook to check out:

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Qtest1.nb

Notice that the inner product values fall exactly on top of the quaternion calculated values.

I think you meant "fall exactly on top of the negcos curve. Of course they do. Joy's analytical prescription is exact. Well, your argument is the same as Gill's lame argument. Which is to only take the math into consideration and no physics into consideration. You guys are getting tripped up on how simple it is for Joy to smash Bell's junk physics theory to pieces.
.

[gill1109]

Recently I mentioned the first quaternion program I wrote a while back. Fred added some stuff to it that didn't seem to make much difference. Now I have found the reason I always thought it didn't apply to the Bell discussions. Here is a notebook to check out:

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Qtest1.nb

Notice that the inner product values fall exactly on top of the quaternion calculated values.

I think you meant "fall exactly on top of the negcos curve. Of course they do. Joy's analytical prescription is exact. Well, your argument is the same as Gill's lame argument. Which is to only take the math into consideration and no physics into consideration. You guys are getting tripped up on how simple it is for Joy to smash Bell's junk physics theory to pieces.
.

Fred, how do you explain that almost no physicists are adopting Joy’s ideas? Surely they should take no notice of some stupid mathematicians. They never bothered about maths in the past (think of Dirac, of van ‘t Hooft). Have they all lost their selfconfidence, their independence?

Joy used to argue that computer simulations prove nothing. Computer simulations are done in flatland. His physics stands on its own feet, needs no computer simulation to justify it.

[jreed]

@jreed

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&p=14587#p14587

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&p=14554#p14554
.

It's ironic that the "spinoral sign change" that you say makes the calculation 100% local is actually inserting the non-localities needed to violate the CHSH inequality and give the cosine output curve.

Why would that be "ironic"? I told you already that it comes down to either accepting the spinorial sign changes or not accepting them. We accept them and they are 100 percent local making our simulation 100 percent local. Even if you don't accept them, we are 99.998 percent local. And there is NOTHING you can do about that fact except cry.
.

I ran the vector program without any spinoral sign changes. It returns the triangle wave, which indicates there is no non-locality. When you put in your spinoral sign changes, a cosine curve is returned. This indicates, to me at least, that adding spinoral sign changes has made the program non-local and able to violate Bell. It's laughable when you think about it. What you were trying to do with spinoral sign changes has had just the opposite effect. I'm not crying - I'm laughing.

[FrediFizzx]

Hmm... So John, 99.998 percent local is laughable? It is we who are laughing at the Bell fanatics. Unfortunately, I lost that calculation and can't remember how I did it. But no fear, I have one now that is almost just as good that I have narrowed down the possibilities in it.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... al-calc.nb Scroll to the end.

So, we are for sure about 99.5 percent local with proof. I will eventually figure out how to narrow it down even more.

The direct files. Scroll to the end.

EPRsims/newCS-24-local-calc.pdf
EPRsims/newCS-24-local-calc.nb

Yeah baby, we are sooooooo local you Bell fanatics will be crying again soon.
.

[Joy Christian]

.
Fred, has John Reed been able to turn your latest code into his nonlocal strawman? No. Has he been able to point out nonlocality in our analytical prescription? No. The rest is poppycock.
.

[FrediFizzx]

.
Fred, has John Reed been able to turn your latest code into his nonlocal strawman? No. Has he been able to point out nonlocality in our analytical prescription? No. The rest is poppycock.
.

Yep, looks like John is a hard core Bell fanatic. Probably no saving him from the dark side.

Well, I got it down to about 50 possible candidates out of 10,000. I just need what theta is for them and then can just test them one at a time to see if A changes. I think in the test I did before we got worst case was 2 out of 10 tries so 0.2/10,000 = 0.00002 or 0.002 percent giving us 99.998 percent local not considering that the spinorial sign changes are local anyways. Yeah, the Bell fanatics are getting pretty absurd with this by not admitting defeat. Actually they are really absurd by not realizing that NOTHING can exceed the bounds on the inequalities! It is such a simple mathematical truth.
.

[gill1109]

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

John, that is a wonderful simplification of Fred’s code.

You write “For each experiment, if Bob had a failed trial in that experiment and Alice’s detector 1 is
not equal to detector2, flip the sign of Alice’s detector1”. So you are saying, Alice and Bob each have two detectors. Where in Fred’s code are the results of Alice’s two detectors defined?

Do you have an elegant and transparent distillation of Fred’s current complete algorithm? Of course he and Joy will consider it a “straw-man”. Yet one could always show that with the same settings and same hidden variables it generates identically the same experimental data. It would be a good basis for me to convert to R or Python with a view to doing various experiments. And for producing analytical formulas for the same.

[FrediFizzx]

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

John, that is a wonderful simplification of Fred’s code.

You write “For each experiment, if Bob had a failed trial in that experiment and Alice’s detector 1 is
not equal to detector2, flip the sign of Alice’s detector1”. So you are saying, Alice and Bob each have two detectors. Where in Fred’s code are the results of Alice’s two detectors defined?

Except you are way behind the times. We are up to this code now that John can't seem to make non-local. Hmm... Has a splitter for two output streams for each side.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... for-Joy.nb

Plus I have already proven that we are 99.5 percent local without the consideration of the spinorial sign changes being local.

And..., guess what? There is another COMING SOON that is coming soon!
.

[gill1109]

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

John, that is a wonderful simplification of Fred’s code.

You write “For each experiment, if Bob had a failed trial in that experiment and Alice’s detector 1 is
not equal to detector2, flip the sign of Alice’s detector1”. So you are saying, Alice and Bob each have two detectors. Where in Fred’s code are the results of Alice’s two detectors defined?

Except you are way behind the times. We are up to this code now that John can't seem to make non-local. Hmm... Has a splitter for two output streams for each side.
https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... for-Joy.nb
Plus I have already proven that we are 99.5 percent local without the consideration of the spinorial sign changes being local.
And..., guess what? There is another COMING SOON that is coming soon!

I’m in no hurry. We can wait till your code becomes stable.

[jreed]

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

John, that is a wonderful simplification of Fred’s code.

You write “For each experiment, if Bob had a failed trial in that experiment and Alice’s detector 1 is
not equal to detector2, flip the sign of Alice’s detector1”. So you are saying, Alice and Bob each have two detectors. Where in Fred’s code are the results of Alice’s two detectors defined?

Except you are way behind the times. We are up to this code now that John can't seem to make non-local. Hmm... Has a splitter for two output streams for each side.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... for-Joy.nb

Plus I have already proven that we are 99.5 percent local without the consideration of the spinorial sign changes being local.

And..., guess what? There is another COMING SOON that is coming soon!
.

It's hard to keep up with Fred. Each time I develop a new solution, he comes up with another problem for me. I''ll work on for-Joy.nb. It will be easier since now we seem to have gotten away from the quaternions. They didn't accomplish anything except to make it more complicated.
I'll try to answer Richard's question about the two detectors in this latest version. That also seems to change over time. First there was one lambda, now there are two. The choice of which detector is used depends on lambda (or lambda1 and lambda2). It dates back to Fodje's use of the detection loophole.

[FrediFizzx]

... I’m in no hurry. We can wait till your code becomes stable.

Wait for what? You should already be admitting defeat.
.

[jreed]

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

John, that is a wonderful simplification of Fred’s code.

You write “For each experiment, if Bob had a failed trial in that experiment and Alice’s detector 1 is
not equal to detector2, flip the sign of Alice’s detector1”. So you are saying, Alice and Bob each have two detectors. Where in Fred’s code are the results of Alice’s two detectors defined?

Except you are way behind the times. We are up to this code now that John can't seem to make non-local. Hmm... Has a splitter for two output streams for each side.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... for-Joy.nb

Plus I have already proven that we are 99.5 percent local without the consideration of the spinorial sign changes being local.

And..., guess what? There is another COMING SOON that is coming soon!
.

OK Fred. Here's a non-local version of the code that you said I couldn't make non-local. It was really easy. I await your next attempt with great [anticipation!

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Joy1.nb

[FrediFizzx]

OK Fred. Here's a non-local version of the code that you said I couldn't make non-local. It was really easy. I await your next attempt with great [anticipation!

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Joy1.nb

Nope!!! I said you can't catenate outA1 and outA2, etc. at the beginning. You just did your same strawman. Try again without cheating.
.

[jreed]

OK Fred. Here's a non-local version of the code that you said I couldn't make non-local. It was really easy. I await your next attempt with great [anticipation!

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Joy1.nb

Nope!!! I said you can't catenate outA1 and outA2, etc. at the beginning. You just did your same strawman. Try again without cheating.
.

How is this cheating? Can I come up with code to put outA1 and outA2 together without using Catenate? What are the rules of the game?

[FrediFizzx]

OK Fred. Here's a non-local version of the code that you said I couldn't make non-local. It was really easy. I await your next attempt with great [anticipation!

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Joy1.nb

Nope!!! I said you can't catenate outA1 and outA2, etc. at the beginning. You just did your same strawman. Try again without cheating.
.

How is this cheating? Can I come up with code to put outA1 and outA2 together without using Catenate? What are the rules of the game?

It is cheating because I already told you can't do that because you will just make your old strawman. No, you can't put outA1 and outA2, etc. together any other way at the beginning because it will just be your old strawman. You can catenate at the end only to make outA and outB from the two streams per side like I am doing.
.

[jreed]

OK Fred. Here's a non-local version of the code that you said I couldn't make non-local. It was really easy. I await your next attempt with great [anticipation!

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/Joy1.nb

Nope!!! I said you can't catenate outA1 and outA2, etc. at the beginning. You just did your same strawman. Try again without cheating.
.

How is this cheating? Can I come up with code to put outA1 and outA2 together without using Catenate? What are the rules of the game?

It is cheating because I already told you can't do that because you will just make your old strawman. No, you can't put outA1 and outA2, etc. together any other way at the beginning because it will just be your old strawman. You can catenate at the end only to make outA and outB from the two streams per side like I am doing.
.

I'm not going by your rules. Take it or leave it. I'll do whatever I need to do to show that your code is nothing but a bunch of confusing nonsense. Now, with that said, let's see your latest innovation in confusion.