Joy Christian wrote:Please do not forget that you are a statistician, not a mathematician or a physicist. Unfortunately, those without the expertise and/or peer-reviewed publication record in geometric algebra usually tend to misunderstand my work. In fact, some expertise or peer-reviewed publication record, not only in geometric algebra, but also in division algebras, differential geometry, topology, fibre bundles, and general relativity is essential for understanding my work on quantum correlations and Bell’s theorem. Please do not forget that you have no background or expertise in any of these vital subjects.

Dear Joy, you are so funny when you start blowing your own trumpet!

Indeed, I am not a physicist. My value to physicists is that I am a mathematician, not a physicist.

I am primarily a

mathematical statistician. That's a mathematician who explores the mathematical basis of applied statistics. The arrogant disparaging of statisticians is a well-known phenomenon. I think the times they are a changin' in that respect, though we do often call ourselves data scientists nowadays to bypass ignorance and prejudice.

Here's my Google scholar publication record:

https://scholar.google.nl/citations?user=yJj_DosAAAAJ&hl=enI'm not aware that you have a stunning peer-reviewed publication record in differential geometry, topology, fibre bundles and general relativity. Not to mention geometric algebra and division algebras. As far as I know, you have exactly one publication in algebra: the preprint

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01933757/document. I do admire your style in submitting this work to peer review by specialists in the field. How is the peer review going?