Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Oct 25, 2020 10:10 am

***

Image

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby gill1109 » Sun Oct 25, 2020 7:40 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
I just submitted to RSOS, and to arXiv, a comment on Joy's RSOS paper. The RSOS paper depends on the material in the Algebra paper. I named Joy as a person who should definitely be asked to referee my paper... I do not want the paper retracted, but I do want the errors in the paper ... exposed.

If Gill's paper is indeed submitted to RSOS, and if RSOS takes his paper seriously, and if I am asked to review it, then I will certainly recommend his paper for publication out of self-interest.

***

Yes, obviously, because you will have the opportunity to publish a response!

I still think we should write a short paper together on the CHSH operator as giving proof of the Kochen-Specker theorem.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby gill1109 » Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:42 am

My submission to RSOS, at the invitation of the editors: https://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/author_tex.pdf

arXiv moderators find it too scary, they will only place it on arXiv after it is published, just as I expected ;)

I can understand that :lol:

BTW, just discovered an alternative internet encyclopedia https://www.vixrapedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby local » Tue Oct 27, 2020 11:09 am

Baez awards 20 c****pot points for naming a theorem after oneself.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby gill1109 » Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:18 pm

I don’t do that. Fred started talking about Gill’s theorem. He was referring to a theorem which I proved.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:45 pm

local wrote:
Baez awards 20 c****pot points for naming a theorem after oneself.

I wasn't inspired to look at Gill's supposed "paper" until you mentioned this. I now had a look. It is not a scientific paper. It belongs to a tabloid newspaper. What do they call those in the US?

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby local » Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:08 pm

I agree. The content is shameful and the author is not doing himself any favors. Hopefully all the ad hominems and self adulation will be removed by the editors. But then, what is left?

We have tabloids but no page 3 girls. :P
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:29 pm

gill1109 wrote:I don’t do that. Fred started talking about Gill’s theorem. He was referring to a theorem which I proved.

You have no proof. All the "proofs" are shot down now. So..., it is now Gill's theory. But that is OK, it is not a bad theory since no one has done it. Yet.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Oct 27, 2020 5:57 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I don’t do that. Fred started talking about Gill’s theorem. He was referring to a theorem which I proved.

You have no proof. All the "proofs" are shot down now. So..., it is now Gill's theory. But that is OK, it is not a bad theory since no one has done it. Yet.

Even if it is a correct "theory", it is a worthless triviality. Classical physics says that, given initial conditions, we can predict the final outcome of any physical process. And yet, we cannot predict whether or not it is going to rain at 3:00 pm on Sunday afternoon. So I make a "theory" and claim that no one can predict that, and that is my theorem, "Christian's theorem", and submit a tabloid article on it to RSOS. That is what Gill has done. It is pathetic.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby gill1109 » Tue Oct 27, 2020 9:03 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I don’t do that. Fred started talking about Gill’s theorem. He was referring to a theorem which I proved.

You have no proof. All the "proofs" are shot down now. So..., it is now Gill's theory. But that is OK, it is not a bad theory since no one has done it. Yet.
.

Fred, could you tell me, what work are *you* talking about right now? It seems as if you are talking about my 2001 arXiv paper, published by the IMS in 2003 in a refereed “Festschrift” volume. My theory is not a bad theory, indeed, because it proves that a certain distributed computing task is impossible. Several people did nevertheless try to do it, but they failed, exactly as I predicted.

The link is:

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110137,

Accardi contra Bell (cum mundi): The Impossible Coupling

Richard D. Gill

An experimentally observed violation of Bell's inequality is supposed to show the failure of local realism to deal with quantum reality. However, finite statistics and the time sequential nature of real experiments still allow a loophole for local realism, known as the memory loophole. We show that the randomized design of the Aspect experiment closes this loophole. Our main tool is van de Geer's (2000) supermartingale version of the classical Bernstein (1924) inequality guaranteeing, at the root n scale, a not-heavier-than-Gaussian tail of the distribution of a sum of bounded supermartingale differences. The results are used to specify a protocol for a public bet between the author and L. Accardi, who in recent papers (Accardi and Regoli, 2000a,b, 2001; Accardi, Imafuku and Regoli, 2002) has claimed to have produced a suite of computer programmes, to be run on a network of computers, which will simulate a violation of Bell's inequalites. At a sample size of thirty thousand, both error probabilities are guaranteed smaller than one in a million, provided we adhere to the sequential randomized design. The results also show that Hess and Philipp's (2001a,b) recent claims are mistaken that Bell's theorem fails because of time phenomena supposedly neglected by Bell.

Journal reference: pp. 133-154 in: Mathematical Statistics and Applications: Festschrift for Constance van Eeden. Eds: M. Moore, S. Froda and C. Léger. IMS Lecture Notes -- Monograph Series, Volume 42 (2003). Institute of Mathematical Statistics. Beachwood, Ohio
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby gill1109 » Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:46 am

https://vixra.org/abs/2010.0219, Comment on "Quantum Correlations Are Weaved by the Spinors of the Euclidean Primitives".

Feel free to comment there, on my comment. It is very convenient to have all comments in one place.

ArXiv is only going to place my preprint when/if it is accepted by RSOS.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:20 pm

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I don’t do that. Fred started talking about Gill’s theorem. He was referring to a theorem which I proved.

You have no proof. All the "proofs" are shot down now. So..., it is now Gill's theory. But that is OK, it is not a bad theory since no one has done it. Yet.
.

Fred, could you tell me, what work are *you* talking about right now? It seems as if you are talking about my 2001 arXiv paper, published by the IMS in 2003 in a refereed “Festschrift” volume. My theory is not a bad theory, indeed, because it proves that a certain distributed computing task is impossible. ...

You proved no such thing. You are suffering under the misconception that your theory has something to do with Bell's theory. It doesn't. Bell's theory has been shot down for years now. But don't worry, yours will be shot down eventually also. If Nature does it, it can be modelled analytically as well as by computers. And it is most likely a local process since Jay demonstrated that QM is local for the EPR-Bohm scenario. But that is just plain common sense that all action in Nature is local.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby gill1109 » Sun Nov 01, 2020 11:07 am

Common sense could be wrong. It used to be common sense that the Earth was flat. And that women did not possess intelligence and could not do the things that men do. Everyone knew that the universe was created in 7 days, four thousand years ago.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:21 pm

***
I have revised this paper on the arXiv with a new appendix --- Appendix C: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.06172.pdf.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby local » Mon Nov 16, 2020 7:25 pm

Great, thanks for alerting us, Joy.

gill1109 wrote:Common sense could be wrong. It used to be common sense that the Earth was flat. And that women did not possess intelligence and could not do the things that men do. Everyone knew that the universe was created in 7 days, four thousand years ago.

This is like Godwin's Law. Once you start saying stuff like this you have lost the argument.
local
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:19 pm

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Nov 17, 2020 1:47 am

Joy Christian wrote:
I have revised this paper on the arXiv with a new appendix --- Appendix C: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.06172.pdf.

I should mention that this paper is under review by a very prestigious mathematics journal. There is, of course, no guarantee that it will be accepted, but the very fact that it is not rejected by the journal without review is a clear indication that the unsubstantiated claims made about it by R. Gill, John C. Baez, and Communications in Algebra were unjustified.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:39 pm

.
A professor of Engineering and Computer Science from a well-known Canadian University has taken an active interest in my "octonian-like" paper that Gill had campaigned to have retracted from the journal Communications in Algebra. Here is the abstract of the professor's paper, which he has written with one of his Ph.D. students:

Using elementary linear algebra, this paper clarifies and proves some concepts about the previously introduced octonion-like associative division algebra (pseudo-octonion algebra). For a specific seminorm described in the paper (which differs from the norm used in the original paper), it is shown that the pseudo-octonion algebra is a semi-normed algebra, which does not contradict Hurwitz’s theorem. Moreover, additional results related to the computation of inverse numbers in the pseudo-octonion algebra are introduced in the paper, confirming that the pseudo-octonion algebra is a division algebra with no zero divisors using the seminorm. The elementary linear algebra descriptions also allow straightforward software implementations of the pseudo-octonion algebra.

I have read his paper, but it is not yet available online. I will post a link here when it becomes available. My original paper is available on the arXiv: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.06172.pdf.

I have posted Gill's retraction saga (involving John C. Baez) on PubPeer for the future historians and sociologists of science: https://pubpeer.com/publications/E3CC09 ... 5CAEE98D#5.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby gill1109 » Sat Dec 19, 2020 11:23 pm

Joy Christian wrote:.
A professor of Engineering and Computer Science from a well-known Canadian University has taken an active interest in my "octonian-like" paper that Gill had campaigned to have retracted from the journal Communications in Algebra. Here is the abstract of the professor's paper, which he has written with one of his Ph.D. students:

Using elementary linear algebra, this paper clarifies and proves some concepts about the previously introduced octonion-like associative division algebra (pseudo-octonion algebra). For a specific seminorm described in the paper (which differs from the norm used in the original paper), it is shown that the pseudo-octonion algebra is a semi-normed algebra, which does not contradict Hurwitz’s theorem. Moreover, additional results related to the computation of inverse numbers in the pseudo-octonion algebra are introduced in the paper, confirming that the pseudo-octonion algebra is a division algebra with no zero divisors using the seminorm. The elementary linear algebra descriptions also allow straightforward software implementations of the pseudo-octonion algebra.

I have read his paper, but it is not yet available online. I will post a link here when it becomes available. My original paper is available on the arXiv: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.06172.pdf.
The last version I saw has a pseudo-norm (or semi-norm) instead of a norm. It reduces the space to the quaternions.
I have posted Gill's retraction saga (involving John C. Baez) on PubPeer for the future historians and sociologists of science: https://pubpeer.com/publications/E3CC09 ... 5CAEE98D#5.
.

Yes, a nice guy, he also emailed me and showed me his paper with his student about the split biquaternions. I told him some more stuff about them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-biquaternion, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomplex_number
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:41 am

Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Bell's Theorem and Normed Division Algebras

Postby gill1109 » Sun Dec 20, 2020 1:51 am


You obviously have to have sufficient mathematical background to be able to check what's written in specialist mathematical articles on Wikipedia. Good articles contain references to every asserted fact. Those two particular articles are pretty good. The split bi-quaternions have been known since Clifford wrote about them in 1873 (he called them "elliptic biquaternions"). He classified all the geometric algebras in 1882. The hypercomplex numbers have similarly been intensively studied for a long time now.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 81 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library