FrediFizzx wrote:Heinera wrote:This is going absolutely nowhere: no answer from you.
I really do think you should answer Michel's questions first which you have NOT answered. If you can't answer them, then just say so. No problem. Thanks.
Fred, the problem is "ask a silly question, get a silly answer".
Heinera doesn't answer Michel's question because it is ill-posed.
There is a second major problem with is: this has gone totally off-topic.
Take one N x 4 spreadsheet of numbers +/-1 called A, A', B, B'
Calculate four correlations each based on all N numbers and you'll always find CHSH <= 2
Choose a random number 1, 2, 3, or 4 for each row of the spreadsheet, and re-order the rows of the spreadsheet by the new column (with numbers 1, 2, 3, 4). Call the numbers or rows with each value N1, N2, N3, N4; so N1 + N2 + N3 + N4 = N.
By copy-paste make four smaller spreadsheets, with N1, N2, N3 and N4 rows respectively
On small spread-sheet 1 calculate E(A, B)
On small spread-sheet 2 calculate E(A', B)
On small spread-sheet 3 calculate E(A, B')
On small spread-sheet 4 calculate E(A', B')
Calculate CHSH
About half the time, you could find CHSH <= 2
About half the time, you could find CHSH >= 2
You might on occasion find CHSH = 4
If N was large, however, you'll only rarely find CHSH > 2.4
Does anyone disagree?Has everyone now done my little R experiment in order to confirm the things I say here, to get them clear in their minds?Please all make a major effor to get back on topic, boys.
Do I have to say that in large bold capital letters?