minkwe wrote:gill1109 wrote:Why don't you spend some time trying empirically to prove that we are wrong? Tweak your simulation so that it has coincidence rate 90% or better and, at the same time, CHSH equal to 2.8 or better (up to statistical error). Can you do it?

Why should I spend any time on that, when analytically, logically and mathematically, your paper is clearly wrong. Besides, my ability or inability to do anything does not change the fact that your paper is wrong. No doubt you won't answer my question:

In EPR test experiments, do you deny the fact that the sets of particles used to measure each correlation are disjoint?????

By what magic of mathematics or logic, do you claim that an intersection of 4 disjoint sets is not a null set?????These are the two simple questions, whose simple answers are devastating to your paper. By the way you have no answers to the following ones either:

<a1b1> + <a2b2′> + <a3′b3′> − <a4′b4> Each paired-product term, has an upper bound of 1 and a lower bound of -1. Which clearly means the upper bound is 4. By what magic of mathematics or logic, do you claim that 4 disjoint sets of particles impose restrictions on each other such that the upper bound is less than 4????

Question 0 "Why should I spend any time on that, when analytically, logically and mathematically, your paper is clearly wrong".

Answer: I don't mind what you do with your time. But I will mention that your prior assumption here is false. Maybe if you might admit to yourself that maybe there are some things which you don't quite understand yet, you might be able to learn some useful new stuff. On the other hand, if you are always certain you're right, you'll not learn much new, ever.

Question 1 a "Do I deny the fact that...":

Answer: No.

Question 1 b: "By what magic, do you claim that an intersection of 4 disjoint sets is not a null set?"

Answer: I do not claim what you say that I claim.

Question 2: "By what magic...":

Answer: Here I did use what apparently appears to you to be magic. ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", Arthur C. Clarke). Actually,

I assumed random sampling of the settings, and

I used probability theory, which is part of modern mathematics. Moreover,

I only made probabilistic assertions (my assertions involved probabilities and error quantities).

PS. I am beginning to get a bit worried that you maybe never learnt any probability theory, am I right? (There are lots of things I never learnt about, either!). For instance, do you know the Chernoff bound?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernoff_bound?

See also

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~sinclair/cs271/n13.pdf, Lecture notes CS271 Randomness & Computation Fall 2011, Lecture 13: October 6, by Alistair Sinclair.