gill1109 wrote:That derivation started with an e_0 and a g_0. There is no mention of their probability distribution, but it seems that they are supposed to be statistically independent and uniformly distributed ... except that their domain is not a product space since they have to satisfy some requirement together.
Anyway: tell us the joint probability distribution of e_0 and g_0 (including where it lives). This is the S^3 stuff, the quaternionic stuff. Your model!
Then derive from that, the function f(.) and the law of theta_0; more precisely, derive the joint probability law of e_0 and theta_0.
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:That derivation started with an e_0 and a g_0. There is no mention of their probability distribution, but it seems that they are supposed to be statistically independent and uniformly distributed ... except that their domain is not a product space since they have to satisfy some requirement together.
Anyway: tell us the joint probability distribution of e_0 and g_0 (including where it lives). This is the S^3 stuff, the quaternionic stuff. Your model!
Then derive from that, the function f(.) and the law of theta_0; more precisely, derive the joint probability law of e_0 and theta_0.
and are random vectors, uniformly distributed over S^2. In this respect is no different from , apart form the fact that they are statistically independent.
The function has been derived already in this document. The initial state of the system is a pair of quaternions, , in S^3, with the requirement that
,
where is an arbitrary function. No further specification of the physicial system is needed apart from the choice of , where .
Joy Christian wrote:What is empty is Bell's so-called theorem. It has been proven wrong by me many times over. It is as wrong as 2+2=5 is wrong. 2+2=5 and Bell's so-called theorem are mathematical statements that have no relevance to physics. To understand Bell's naïve mistakes, you may have to read at least the introductory parts of my book:
Joy Christian wrote:There are indeed many mathematical and logical howlers in your uninformed and dishonest argument. I myself, as well as many others, have exposed your howlers many times over: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529.
My physics and mathematics, on the other hand, are of highest calibre. I am sorry that you are unable to understand my argument, but that is not really my problem.
gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:There are indeed many mathematical and logical howlers in your uninformed and dishonest argument. I myself, as well as many others, have exposed your howlers many times over: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529.
My physics and mathematics, on the other hand, are of highest calibre. I am sorry that you are unable to understand my argument, but that is not really my problem.
I think you should delete the word "dishonest". That is a personal attack, an attack on my scientific integrity.
You are welcome to your high opinion of your mathematics, and low opinion of mine. I have no problem with that.
Joy Christian wrote:It is not a personal attack. Your argument IS dishonest, as explained in the linked video. Please watch the video to appreciate how dishonest your argument really is.
gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:It is not a personal attack. Your argument IS dishonest, as explained in the linked video. Please watch the video to appreciate how dishonest your argument really is.
My argument would be dishonest, if (a) it really was a "straw man" argument, and (b) it was knowingly a straw-man argument.
You may believe (a) if you want to (I believe you would be wrong). But even if you know my argument is a straw man argument, you cannot know (b) that I was fully aware of that. Please withdraw the word "dishonest". It has no place here. You may attack my scientific competence indirectly, through attacking my arguments, but not my scientific integrity.
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:It is not a personal attack. Your argument IS dishonest, as explained in the linked video. Please watch the video to appreciate how dishonest your argument really is.
My argument would be dishonest, if (a) it really was a "straw man" argument, and (b) it was knowingly a straw-man argument.
You may believe (a) if you want to (I believe you would be wrong). But even if you know my argument is a straw man argument, you cannot know (b) that I was fully aware of that. Please withdraw the word "dishonest". It has no place here. You may attack my scientific competence indirectly, through attacking my arguments, but not my scientific integrity.
The dishonesty of (b)-kind started to occur in your argument when you continued to use your incorrect argument even after your errors were pointed out to you by several people, at least 85 times, to be exact. For example, it was pointed out to you that you have inserted an error in your equation (2), and then falsely claimed that your erroneous equation (2) is actually my equation. That is deliberate deception, according to the video I have linked above. What is more, it is not only I who has pointed out to you that your equation (2) is not my equation, but also Fred and Edwin Klingman, among several others---at least 85 times, to be exact. And yet you continue to insist that your erroneous equation (2) is actually my equation. Can you explain to us why that is not deliberate dishonesty in your modus operandi?
gill1109 wrote:Yes I know that you, Fred and others claimed that my analysis was false and pointed out alleged errors numerous times. I could not make any sense of any of their criticisms.
gill1109 wrote:On the other hand, a lot of other people agreed with my analysis (Lucien Hardy, Scott Aaronson, Adrian Kent, Florin Moldoveanu, David Hestenes, Manfried Faber, Azhar Iqbal, Bryan Sanctuary, to name but a few).
gill1109 wrote:So I do not think my persistence in claiming that my analysis was *not* a straw-man attack does not constitute any kind of dishonesty.
Joy Christian wrote:Even the computer tutor Scott Aaronson and the nonlocalist Adrian Kent now realize that they were misled about my work by your erroneous and confused arguments.
Heinera wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Even the computer tutor Scott Aaronson and the nonlocalist Adrian Kent now realize that they were misled about my work by your erroneous and confused arguments.
Has Scott Aaronson said anything about your work since this?
Joy Christian wrote:Heinera wrote:Joy Christian wrote:Even the computer tutor Scott Aaronson and the nonlocalist Adrian Kent now realize that they were misled about my work by your erroneous and confused arguments.
Has Scott Aaronson said anything about your work since this?
Yes, he has.
Heinera wrote:Interesting. Could you elaborate a bit on that, e.g. give a link or something?
Joy Christian wrote:In particular, Lucien Hardy, David Hestenes, Manfried Faber, Azhar Iqbal, Bryan Sanctuary, and many other competent physicists and mathematicians fully agree with my algebraic arguments and clearly see where you have blundered.
gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:In particular, Lucien Hardy, David Hestenes, Manfried Faber, Azhar Iqbal, Bryan Sanctuary, and many other competent physicists and mathematicians fully agree with my algebraic arguments and clearly see where you have blundered.
Splendid. We look forward to their own publications citing your work and building further on your contributions.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests