Coming Soon!

[Heinera]

The red-colored sentences of John Reed are pure stupidity on his part. There is no other name for it..

The stupidity lies elsewhere.

Trial numbers are shared between Alice and Bob. They are part of the hidden variables, or common causes, or initial states of the singlet system. Sharing trial numbers, or even the entire hidden variable set of functions does not violate locality.
.

Good, we now know that you don't even understand your own theory. Why would Alice need Bob telling her about her trial numbers? Because that is what's happening in Fred's very non-local code. Bob is telling Alice that for a certain set of trial numbers, her results need to be manipulated.

[Joy Christian]

The red-colored sentences of John Reed are pure stupidity on his part. There is no other name for it..

The stupidity lies elsewhere.

Trial numbers are shared between Alice and Bob. They are part of the hidden variables, or common causes, or initial states of the singlet system. Sharing trial numbers, or even the entire hidden variable set of functions does not violate locality.
.

Good, we now know that you don't even understand your own theory. Why would Alice need Bob telling her about her trial numbers? Because that is what's happening in Fred's very non-local code. Bob is telling Alice that for a certain set of trial numbers, her results need to be manipulated.

You, Heinera, are famous for displaying your stupidity frequently on this forum. And you have done it again. Keep your BS to yourself. I am not interested in your opinion.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Apparently, the Bell fanatics don't understand what a hidden variable is. And that . And that without taking the spinorial sign changes as local we are 99.81 percent local; 100 percent local with the LOCAL spinorial sign changes. All they can do now is come up with some really stupid nonsense. They got nothing else. Completely and thoroughly self-brainwashed so they have absolutely no concept of when to admit defeat.
.

[jreed]

This example should be perfectly clear to anyone who understands programming and what non-local means. Here is the question I have now. Is this misunderstanding by Joy and Fred due to stupidity or due to a desire to cloud the issue with nonsense so it can be published? I think it's the latter. When I worked as a Senior Staff Scientist in industry we had an expression for people who used such tactics:

If you can't dazzle em with brilliance,
baffle em with bull****.

[FrediFizzx]

This example should be perfectly clear to anyone who understands programming and what non-local means. Here is the question I have now. Is this misunderstanding by Joy and Fred due to stupidity or due to a desire to cloud the issue with nonsense so it can be published? I think it's the latter. When I worked as a Senior Staff Scientist in industry we had an expression for people who used such tactics:

You have yet to prove that we are less than 99.81 percent local. So, you should stop with the BS and get to work as I have already proven that we are 99.81 percent local without the consideration that the spinorial sign changes make it 100 percent local. Where is the flaw in my proof?
.

[Joy Christian]

This example should be perfectly clear to anyone who understands programming and what non-local means. Here is the question I have now. Is this misunderstanding by Joy and Fred due to stupidity or due to a desire to cloud the issue with nonsense so it can be published? I think it's the latter. When I worked as a Senior Staff Scientist in industry we had an expression for people who used such tactics:

If you can't dazzle em with brilliance,
baffle em with bull****.

Stupidity is entirely yours, John Reed, as I have exposed it very clearly in my previous two posts:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&start=580#p14726.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&start=580#p14728.

I have also not forgotten that at one time, not so long ago, you used division by zero to prove Bell-CHSH inequality.

You wanted to find nonlocality in Fred's code. But you have failed.
.

[gill1109]

Here's Fred's algorithm streamlined and run for a CHSH experiment.

Code: Select all

set.seed(1234)
M <- 100000
s <- runif(M, 0, 2 * pi)
phi <- 3.1 * (2 * pi) / 360
beta <- 0.32
xi <- -16  * (2 * pi) / 360
lambda <- beta * cos(s/phi)^2

a <- 0
b <- pi/4
Afail <- abs(cos(a - s)) < lambda
Asuccess <- !Afail
A <- ifelse(Asuccess, -sign(cos(a - s)), -sign(sin(a - s + xi)))
Aalt <- -sign(sin(a - s + xi))
Bfail <- abs(cos(b - s)) < lambda
Bsuccess <- !Bfail
B <- ifelse(Bsuccess, sign(cos(b - s)), sign(sin(b - s + xi)))
Balt <- sign(sin(b - s + xi))
A[Bfail] <- Aalt[Bfail]
B[Afail] <- Balt[Afail]
mean(A*B)
1 - mean(Asuccess * Bsuccess)

a <- 0
b <- 3 * pi/4
Afail <- abs(cos(a - s)) < lambda
Asuccess <- !Afail
A <- ifelse(Asuccess, -sign(cos(a - s)), -sign(sin(a - s + xi)))
Aalt <- -sign(sin(a - s + xi))
Bfail <- abs(cos(b - s)) < lambda
Bsuccess <- !Bfail
B <- ifelse(Bsuccess, sign(cos(b - s)), sign(sin(b - s + xi)))
Balt <- sign(sin(b - s + xi))
A[Bfail] <- Aalt[Bfail]
B[Afail] <- Balt[Afail]
mean(A*B)
1 - mean(Asuccess * Bsuccess)

a <- pi/2
b <- pi/4
Afail <- abs(cos(a - s)) < lambda
Asuccess <- !Afail
A <- ifelse(Asuccess, -sign(cos(a - s)), -sign(sin(a - s + xi)))
Aalt <- -sign(sin(a - s + xi))
Bfail <- abs(cos(b - s)) < lambda
Bsuccess <- !Bfail
B <- ifelse(Bsuccess, sign(cos(b - s)), sign(sin(b - s + xi)))
Balt <- sign(sin(b - s + xi))
A[Bfail] <- Aalt[Bfail]
B[Afail] <- Balt[Afail]
mean(A*B)
1 - mean(Asuccess * Bsuccess)

a <- pi/2
b <- 3 * pi/4
Afail <- abs(cos(a - s)) < lambda
Asuccess <- !Afail
A <- ifelse(Asuccess, -sign(cos(a - s)), -sign(sin(a - s + xi)))
Aalt <- -sign(sin(a - s + xi))
Bfail <- abs(cos(b - s)) < lambda
Bsuccess <- !Bfail
B <- ifelse(Bsuccess, sign(cos(b - s)), sign(sin(b - s + xi)))
Balt <- sign(sin(b - s + xi))
A[Bfail] <- Aalt[Bfail]
B[Afail] <- Balt[Afail]
mean(A*B)
1 - mean(Asuccess * Bsuccess)

Here are the results, first, a = 0 and b = pi/4

Code: Select all

> mean(A*B)
[1] -0.70988
> 1 - mean(Asuccess * Bsuccess)
[1] 0.20515


Next, a = 0 and b = 3 * pi/4

Code: Select all

> mean(A*B)
[1] 0.70388
> 1 - mean(Asuccess * Bsuccess)
[1] 0.20624


Then, a = pi/2 and b = pi/4

Code: Select all

> mean(A*B)
[1] -0.70298
> 1 - mean(Asuccess * Bsuccess)
[1] 0.20414

Finally, a = pi/2 and b = 3 * pi/4

Code: Select all

> mean(A*B)
[1] -0.70402
> 1 - mean(Asuccess * Bsuccess)
[1] 0.20523

Communication leads to a flip of Alice or Bob's primary outcome in 20% of the cases. This is in line with various existing results of how much data manipulation is needed to fake quantum correlations after an experiment is done subject to local realism. Of course, there is communication needed for every trial since if no flip is asked for this is equivalent to communicating that no flip is needed. One bit of information is transmitted in each direction in each trial.

[Joy Christian]

.
Nice. But don't call it Fred's code. That is your code, just as John's code is John's code, not Fred's code. You will fool Bell-believers with your code, but nothing from you can ever fool me.
.

[FrediFizzx]

.
Nice. But don't call it Fred's code. That is your code, just as John's code is John's code, not Fred's code. You will fool Bell-believers with your code, but nothing from you can ever fool me.

Yeah, all they can do now is spew BS nonsense. They can't and won't find a flaw in my proof that we are 99.81 percent local without the spinorial sign changes that make it 100 percent local. They might get the 99.81 percent to fluctuate a small amount but never lower than about 99.5 percent. They are finished, kaput! Done, dead! Time for the Bell fanatics to get real get over it and move on!
.

[FrediFizzx]

Here is the proof again that we are 99.81 local without the spinorial sign changes making it 100 percent local.

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.

I've narrowed this down further by checking each possibility for a change in A. Out of the possibilities, we have 19 events where A changed. Which gives us 99.81 percent local for those that reject the spinorial sign changes as the reason which gives us 100 percent local. And which the Bell fanatics can do NOTHING about it so cry baby cry!! You guys are finished!

John already confirmed that any non-locality would have to be via the sign changes. So, out of 10,000 trials we have an average of about 54 sign changes that could be possibilities. Out of those possibilities there were 19 events where a change in the angle b was associated with a change in output A. That puts us at about 99.81 percent local. 0.19 percent non-local is very insignificant.

Now the task for the Bell fanatics would be to find a flaw in this proof. But they can't because there is no flaw.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Ok, I am probably closer to the best case with my 99.81 percent local, so let's see what the worst case might be. The highest number of possibilities in the average of 10 is 61 events. So, let's say that 32 of those events are a change of A associated with a change of the angle b. That would mean that we are 99.68 percent local. Not much difference.
.

[gill1109]

.
Nice. But don't call it Fred's code. That is your code, just as John's code is John's code, not Fred's code. You will fool Bell-believers with your code, but nothing from you can ever fool me.

I don't call it Fred's code. I deliberately called it Fred's algorithm. Given the same angles and the same hidden variable "theta" it will generate exactly the same outcomes. It does exactly what Fred's code does. My code is concise, efficient. You might find it useful when trying to publish your results. Feel free to use it. Acknowledge John Reed if you do so - I learnt from him.

John already confirmed that any non-locality would have to be via the sign changes. So, out of 10,000 trials we have an average of about 54 sign changes that could be possibilities. Out of those possibilities there were 19 events where a change in the angle b was associated with a change in output A. That puts us at about 99.81 percent local. 0.19 percent non-local is very insignificant.

Yes, the non-locality is via sign changes. There is a sign change in 20% of the trials.

[FrediFizzx]

.
Nice. But don't call it Fred's code. That is your code, just as John's code is John's code, not Fred's code. You will fool Bell-believers with your code, but nothing from you can ever fool me.

I don't call it Fred's code. I deliberately called it Fred's algorithm. Given the same angles and the same hidden variable "theta" it will generate exactly the same outcomes. It does exactly what Fred's code does. My code is concise, efficient. You might find it useful when trying to publish your results. Feel free to use it. Acknowledge John Reed if you do so - I learnt from him.

John already confirmed that any non-locality would have to be via the sign changes. So, out of 10,000 trials we have an average of about 54 sign changes that could be possibilities. Out of those possibilities there were 19 events where a change in the angle b was associated with a change in output A. That puts us at about 99.81 percent local. 0.19 percent non-local is very insignificant.

Yes, the non-locality is via sign changes. There is a sign change in 20% of the trials.

No, it does not do what my code does and it is not my algorithm either. It is your non-local piece of junk.

More freakin' nonsense. There are local spinorial sign changes in about 4.5 percent of the events. Out of that I narrowed down the possibilities to 19 events where a change in A was associated with a change in angle b out of 10,000 giving us 99.81 percent local events but 100 percent with the local spinorial sign changes. Your task would be to find the flaw in the above proof. But you are finished anyways! Your goose is cook! Time to get real, get over it and move on!
.

[gill1109]

.
Nice. But don't call it Fred's code. That is your code, just as John's code is John's code, not Fred's code. You will fool Bell-believers with your code, but nothing from you can ever fool me.

I don't call it Fred's code. I deliberately called it Fred's algorithm. Given the same angles and the same hidden variable "theta" it will generate exactly the same outcomes. It does exactly what Fred's code does. My code is concise, efficient. You might find it useful when trying to publish your results. Feel free to use it. Acknowledge John Reed if you do so - I learnt from him.

John already confirmed that any non-locality would have to be via the sign changes. So, out of 10,000 trials we have an average of about 54 sign changes that could be possibilities. Out of those possibilities there were 19 events where a change in the angle b was associated with a change in output A. That puts us at about 99.81 percent local. 0.19 percent non-local is very insignificant.

Yes, the non-locality is via sign changes. There is a sign change in 20% of the trials.

No, it does not do what my code does and it is not my algorithm either. It is your non-local piece of junk.

More freakin' nonsense. There are local spinorial sign changes in about 4.5 percent of the events. Out of that I narrowed down the possibilities to 19 events where a change in A was associated with a change in angle b out of 10,000 giving us 99.81 percent local events but 100 percent with the local spinorial sign changes. Your task would be to find the flaw in the above proof. But you are finished anyways! Your goose is cook! Time to get real, get over it and move on!
.

Your code, Fred, defines a mapping from triples (singlet direction, setting a, and setting b), to pairs of outcomes +/-1 for Alice and Bob. Experimenters may choose settings freely. Nature chooses the singlet angle uniformly distributed on the circle.

It is what it is. In 20% of the trials there is a sign flip on one side or the other (or both) influenced by the setting on the other side. Your results are completely in line with the latest research results on faking quantum correlations in classical computer simulations, published in excellent journals such as PNAS. Your technique is very original, congratulations! Your code has got nothing whatever to do with Joy's "theory", however.

You and Joy may call these sign flips local, spinorial, quaternionic, whatever you like. You can give whatever suggestive names you like to the variables and functions in your code. It doesn't change what your code actually does, which is the same as what John's and my code does, as is easy to verify. (To be more precise: the same as what your code did a few days ago. evidently, nothing very essential has changed).

Feel free to use the simplified version in future! It will help you get your work published. The debate will continue.

[Joy Christian]

.
Note to anyone who is reading this. Gill's and Reed's codes are nonlocal strawmans of Fred's code. No one who is not religiously committed to Bell's junk theorem should be fooled by them.
.

[gill1109]

Note to anyone who is reading this. Gill's and Reed's codes are nonlocal strawmans of Fred's code. No one who is not religiously committed to Bell's junk theorem should be fooled by them.

12 guests are reading this! Excellent.

[FrediFizzx]

Note to anyone who is reading this. Gill's and Reed's codes are nonlocal strawmans of Fred's code. No one who is not religiously committed to Bell's junk theorem should be fooled by them.

12 guests are reading this! Excellent.

They are all web bot crawlers.

Here is the proof again that we are 99.81 local without the spinorial sign changes making it 100 percent local.

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.

I've narrowed this down further by checking each possibility for a change in A. Out of the possibilities, we have 19 events where A changed. Which gives us 99.81 percent local for those that reject the spinorial sign changes as the reason which gives us 100 percent local. And which the Bell fanatics can do NOTHING about it so cry baby cry!! You guys are finished!

John already confirmed that any non-locality would have to be via the sign changes. So, out of 10,000 trials we have an average of about 54 sign changes that could be possibilities. Out of those possibilities there were 19 events where a change in the angle b was associated with a change in output A. That puts us at about 99.81 percent local. 0.19 percent non-local is very insignificant.

Now the task for the Bell fanatics would be to find a flaw in this proof. But they can't because there is no flaw.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Gill keeps trying to post more nonsense on this thread. I'm just going to keep deleting them. I'm only going to accept posts that address the proof above. Criticisms, comments or questions. And don't be making nonsense statements along with your criticisms, comments or questions. Those will be deleted also.
.

[FrediFizzx]

OK Folks, the next COMING SOON is here! 100 percent local! 5 million trials at one degree resolution.



The Cloud file.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... hv-simp.nb

Direct files.

EPRsims/newCS-23-2hv-simp.pdf
EPRsims/newCS-23-2hv-simp.nb

Enjoy the Bell and Gill killer!
.

[gill1109]

OK Folks, the next COMING SOON is here! 100 percent local! 5 million trials at one degree resolution.



The Cloud file.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... hv-simp.nb

Direct files.

EPRsims/newCS-23-2hv-simp.pdf
EPRsims/newCS-23-2hv-simp.nb

Enjoy the Bell and Gill killer!
.

Beautiful code, at last! This can easily be re-programmed in R or Python. Congratulations, Fred!

It is indeed beautifully local. Fred’s method is to ensure that in each trial, in each wing of the experiment, *two* outcomes are generated. Each outcome can equal -1, 0, or +1. The combined outcome on each side might in principle take one of 9 = 3 x 3 values.

This is reminiscent of Eugen Mucholwski’s approach, and of Bryan Sanctuary’s approach.

It does not “kill” any existing mathematical theorems. And I doubt it has any relevance to present day experiments.

Though, it is true that some experiments in the past had two detectors in each wing of the experiment, for both of which the outcomes could be +1, -1, or “no show”. I think maybe that Fred is onto something rather important … This could be *the* explanation of some historically important experiments …