Joy Christian wrote:Gordon Watson wrote:
If Esail writes A(a, h)= A(a-phi, h) and B(b, h) = B(b-phi -pi/2, h).
Then this is wholly local: for A does not depend on b and B does not depend on a.
But A does depend on b and B does depend on a.
1. NOT in the example that I used above: A(a, h)= A(a-phi, h) and B(b, h) = B(b-phi - pi/2, h).
Joy Christian wrote:
Notice that b' = b - phi - pi/2 implies phi = b - b' - pi/2. Now substitute this in the expression for A, which becomes A(a - b + b' + pi/2, h). And similarly, we can write B in terms of a.
2. Agreed. But in this case, whoever introduces b' [in this way] has needlessly gone beyond my example: A(a, h)= A(a-phi, h) and B(b, h) = B(b - phi-pi/2, h).
3. To be consistent, the introduction of b' should lead to: B(b', h) = B(b' - phi-pi/2, h).
4. Question: Who introduced b' into this discussion of Esail's work? With apologies if I missed it!
PS: To be clear about my position, I am simply seeking to see if Esail begins AND MAINTAINS his study under Einstein-locality. For my part, Bell's theorem is false under freedom of choice, Einstein-locality and non-naive realism.
.