Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:Joy's mathematical derivations involve using some calculus theorems about limits. But he starts with writing down some formulas which use "illegal" notation. Or to be more kind, undefined notation.
There is nothing illegal or undefined about the notation I have used. Anyone who understands GA knows that the limit operations are equivalent to the divisions by bivectors Fred has used.
In that case, it seems that nobody understands GA apart from you, Fred, and maybe Tom. I really think you guys need to work on helping people understand GA enough to understand your limit operations.
I kindly suggested that Fred could maybe interpret those formulas as a bit of GA code itself. Start with some s chosen uniformly at random from the sphere, which then moves in little discrete steps simultaneously towards - sign(a cdot s) times a and to + sign(b cdot s) times b.
If you can programme this, then we understand your notation. If you can't, then I'm afraid we never will. I think it can't be done. I'm willing to bet you, it can't be done.
Fred, there is indeed no point whatsoever in continuing with the product calculation. There is no problem there. The formulas are transparent and are easy to reproduce in code, and they generate the singlet correlations. We have all known that for about five years, I think. Joy's model is a "moving target" and we now have issues with relatively newly introduced features. Like a bump under a carpet ... you can't make it go away. Get rid of it in one place and it turns up in another. Try to hide it under the sofa, but it is always there somewhere, if you look.