minkwe wrote:Unfortunately, you are just wrong. Statistics is irrelevant. I've challenged you in the past to produce an appropriate data set from any source, which violates the appropriate upper bound by even 0.0000000000001 statistically. You have been unable. Keyword is appropriate. Introduce as much error as you like.
Huh? Didn't the following post violate the upper bound of 2?
gill1109 wrote:And here are some new results, with many thanks to Zen for new ideas and new result: running [Joy's] program *four* times, to make four separate files, each analysed separately, the four correlations were:
-0.75156, 0.24978, -0.75114, -0.24862
whose absolute values add up to 2.0011. Not exactly 2. But not far off (about 1 / sqrt N off target?).
Or do you mean that in this case the appropriate upper bound is 4?
Then you would be correct if you with upper bound meant "absolute, logically possible upper bound".
But the correct meaning of upper bound in this case is "upper bound for expectations", which implies that for a LHV model, any given value strictly larger than 2 becomes more and more unlikely as the number of runs N goes toward infinity. You say that statistics is irrelevant, but only by applying statistics will it be possible to distinguish between QM predictions and a LHV model for an experiment with a finite number of runs.