DanielLBurnstein wrote:The context is larger than just the email and the posts. From what I understand, Richard Gill admits to his error in interpretation of the two equations, but believes that this creates an even bigger problem with the disproof. As I mentioned earlier, I don't pretend to have the competence to evaluate the disproofs and would rather leave that to experts, preferably experts who would have to gain from it being correct, but at this point we're only provided with one side of the argument while the other is censored.
DanielLBurnstein wrote:The context is larger than just the email and the posts. From what I understand, Richard Gill admits to his error in interpretation of the two equations, but believes that this creates an even bigger problem with the disproof. As I mentioned earlier, I don't pretend to have the competence to evaluate the disproofs and would rather leave that to experts, preferably experts who would have to gain from it being correct, but at this point we're only provided with one side of the argument while the other is censored.
DanielLBurnstein wrote:LOL. Now really? Is this going to stoop to that level? I'm merely saying the fact that we are not provided with both sides of the argument. I would same the same if it were you who were suppressed without the opportunity to respond.
DanielLBurnstein wrote:...Richard Gill admits to his error in interpretation of the two equations...
DanielLBurnstein wrote:The topic is putting the question as to whether Gill and Moldoveanu are desingenuous or incompetent? If that is the topic and if you're to answer the question, then we need the whole picture. Else, there is no point to the discussion because the opposing opinion is not presented. That is quite simple.
Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy claims his beta algebra is GA bivector algebra. It is NOT my claim. If this is indeed the case, he has made a sign error. Rather than your spamming the site by repeating the statements that are in dispute, as though somehow it vindicates you, or wrapping yourselves in the cloaks of better men, all you need to do is show us all where my response to Ben violates any rule of geometric algebra.
function getRandomLambda()
{
if( rand()>0.5) {return 1;} else {return -1;}
}
function getRandomUnitVector() //uniform random unit vector:
//http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SpherePointPicking.html
{
v=randGaussStd()*e1+randGaussStd()*e2+randGaussStd()*e3;
return normalize(v);
}
batch test()
{
set_window_title("Test of Joy Christian's arXiv:1103.1879 paper");
N=20001; //number of iterations (trials)
I=e1^e2^e3;
s=0;
a=getRandomUnitVector();
b=getRandomUnitVector();
minus_cos_a_b=-1*(a.b);
for(nn=0;nn<N;nn=nn+1) //perform the experiment N times
{
//a=getRandomUnitVector();
//b=getRandomUnitVector();
lambda=getRandomLambda(); //lambda is a fair coin,
//resulting in +1 or -1
mu=lambda * I; //calculate the lambda dependent mu
C=-I.a; //C = {-a_j B_j}
D=I.b; //D = {b_k B_k}
E=mu.a; //E = {a_k B_k(L)}
F=mu.b; //F = {b_j B_j(L)}
A=C E; //eq. (1) of arXiv:1103.1879, A(a, L) = {-a_j B_j}{a_k B_k(L)}
B=F D; //eq. (2) of arXiv:1103.1879, B(b, L) = {b_j B_j(L)}{b_k B_k}
q=0;
if(lambda==1) {q=((-C) A B (-D));} else {q=((-D) B A (-C));} //eq. (6)
G=a.b;
s=s+q; //summation of all terms. Add G to see that everything
//vanishes and that the result is -a.b
}
mean_mu_a_mu_b=s/N;
print(mean_mu_a_mu_b); //print the result
print(minus_cos_a_b);
prompt();
}
>> (I.a) (I.b)
ans = 0.77 + -0.39*e2^e3 + 0.44*e3^e1 + 0.25*e1^e2
>> (-I.a) (-I.b)
ans = 0.77 + -0.39*e2^e3 + 0.44*e3^e1 + 0.25*e1^e2
>> (I.b) (I.a)
ans = 0.77 + 0.39*e2^e3 + -0.44*e3^e1 + -0.25*e1^e2
Joy Christian wrote:Fred, what you have presented is far too sophisticated for Lockyer. He does not even know what a "hidden variable" is in my model, or what it means in general.
FrediFizzx wrote:Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy claims his beta algebra is GA bivector algebra. It is NOT my claim. If this is indeed the case, he has made a sign error. Rather than your spamming the site by repeating the statements that are in dispute, as though somehow it vindicates you, or wrapping yourselves in the cloaks of better men, all you need to do is show us all where my response to Ben violates any rule of geometric algebra.
Your response to Ben does not violate any rules of GA.
So what? It has nothing to do with Joy's model. And that is your mistake that you continue to make. Perhaps a demonstration using GAViewer will highlight your mistake (hopefully at least Ben and others will "get it"). Run this code so that I, a and b are setup,
So while there is no mathematical error in your presentation, it doesn't fit the physics of Joy's model, as we have been saying all along. There is also no math error in what I presented.
Rick Lockyer wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Rick Lockyer wrote:Joy claims his beta algebra is GA bivector algebra. It is NOT my claim. If this is indeed the case, he has made a sign error. Rather than your spamming the site by repeating the statements that are in dispute, as though somehow it vindicates you, or wrapping yourselves in the cloaks of better men, all you need to do is show us all where my response to Ben violates any rule of geometric algebra.
Your response to Ben does not violate any rules of GA.
Finally, a correct statement from you. But then you state this:So what? It has nothing to do with Joy's model. And that is your mistake that you continue to make. Perhaps a demonstration using GAViewer will highlight your mistake (hopefully at least Ben and others will "get it"). Run this code so that I, a and b are setup,
Your code, which does not represent Joy's model, but does represent his sign error, got snipped because it is not meaningful to the discussion topic in this thread. It does not in any manner represent a bivector orientation change. It is my understanding Heinera put out commutation as a joke. You clearly took it hook, line and sinker.
Rick Lockyer wrote:It is my understanding Heinera put out commutation as a joke.
Richard Gill wrote:
I am delighted to admit that I had overlooked the intended interpretation of your two equations: the interpretation which makes them entirely consistent with one another. In retrospect, very obvious ...
Rick Lockyer wrote:For the last time Fred, the cross product is not fundamental, it is an outcome of the basis element multiplication rules for the algebras it actually exists in. The basis element multiplication rules are what is fundamental in any algebra. We have a non-disputable map between right and left handed bivector bases: ei^ej becomes ej^ei. I correctly worked out the math for bivectors a, b: a^b in both right handed and left handed bases alternately using these fundamental definitions (ei^ej) for the bivector bases, and it should be quite clear to anyone with a modicum of math skills that it demonstrates Joy's lambda modified beta bivector equation he bases his claims on are algebraically incorrect as stated since they do not correlate. You correctly saw I made no GA errors, yet you failed to make the connection to Joy's sign error. I find that rather bizarre, since it is crystal clear within the presentation.
Your GAViewer program is likewise not fundamental, and its order reversal does not map between left and right handed bases in any meaningful way that indicates Joy has not made a sign error. Your "physics postulate" crutch is idiotic, this is an algebra error on Joy's part that can't be excused by any physics.
Moldoveanu further complaining on Aug 2, wrote:I gave up following the latest twist and turns of what Joy claimed it was his original model all along.
(b⋅σ)(a⋅σ)=−a⋅b−i(a×b)σ is the latest incarnation of the so many different variations of the attempts to arrive at -a.b, but I only consider the very first Joy proposal. If Joy will ever admit that was mistaken, then I can entertain considering a new proposal.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 90 guests