FrediFizzx wrote:gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:Ok, so back to running the GAVIewer program on two computers. I'm 100 percent convinced there will be no difference in the results whether it is run on one or two computers. So, it is indeed a perfect counter-example to Gull's nonsense.
.
The point is not whether or not your GAViewer program gives the same results on several computers. The point is whether or not you can write two new programs, each running a separate dialogue on a separate computer; each getting their own stream of angles, supplied externally. You don’t control the inputs. We, scientists and amateur scientists of the world, do.
Please try! Write the two programs, so that anyone can test them, themselves, run completely separately; one taking Alice’s angles, one taking Bob’s angles. Each program must run that loop-with-dialogue.
Once again, I'm only doing Bell's theory not Gill's theory with this GAViewer simulation. Bell and Gull are shot down 100 percent!
.
You haven’t shot down Gull or Bell till you can write programmes for two separate computers which successfully perform Gull’s two dialogues problem.
If Bell were wrong, there would exist functions A and B and a probability density rho such that etc etc etc. If such existed, then you could generate a lot of independent realisations of lambda, and store them on two computers, in fact store them as constants inside the two programs. On each computer, you program A and B; lambda_1, lambda_2, ... are constants inside the programs. At the n’th trial, an angle theta_n is given to Alice’s computer and the program outputs A(theta_n, lambda_n). An angle phi_n is given to Bob’s computer, and it outputs B(phi_n, lambda_n).
Bell and Gull are equivalent. Bell’s theorem says that the Gull programming task is impossible (I’ve just given you the argument for this claim). Gull’s theorem says that the Bell maths task (find functions ... such that ...) is impossible (exercise: give the argument).
Your GAViewer simulation is an utter waste of time. It draws the negative cosine function by a rather inefficient Monte Carlo simulation.
It cannot be separated into two modules, each running on a separate computer, one of which receives angles theta_1, theta_2, ... and the other phi_1, phi_2, ... supplied by an outside user.
If I’m wrong, then show everyone that I’m wrong. Give us two programs which fulfil Gull’s specifications.