Coming Soon!

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 I hope you meant Cl(0,3)(R). Hmm... I just found out that Microsoft has a version of R that is better.
https://mran.microsoft.com/

Great! I don’t know about *better*. Maybe, better for you if you are working on a Windows computer

I will try it out, on my virtual Windows machine, on my Mac.

The enhanced better stuff we will probably never use. So far, I like Rstudio better.
.

[gill1109]

@gill1109 I hope you meant Cl(0,3)(R). Hmm... I just found out that Microsoft has a version of R that is better.
https://mran.microsoft.com/

Great! I don’t know about *better*. Maybe, better for you if you are working on a Windows computer

I will try it out, on my virtual Windows machine, on my Mac.

The enhanced better stuff we will probably never use. So far, I like Rstudio better.
.

The interesting thing is how Microsoft is enabling more and more (geeky?) unix and linux stuff within Windows. They know there’s a big community doing software development and doing machine learning and doing science which needs these tools and must have access to these platforms. It’s a good thing for us “consumers” that not one company has a monopoly any more.

[FrediFizzx]

Well..., Folks, I had a tiny mistake in the last simulation so here it is again fixed. Product Calculation,



Blue is data points and magenta is -cosine curve for an exact match!! Sim result, 200K trials one degree resolution,



Cloud,

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... -forum3.nb

Files,

EPRsims/newCS-15-S3quat-prodcalc-forum3.pdf
EPRsims/newCS-15-S3quat-prodcalc-forum3.nb

It's even MORE awesome now! Enjoy!

Gill should really pay up and eat that hat!
.

[jreed]

Good news! I have been carefully examining the Mathematica code given in "Event-by-Event Numerical Simulation...", and it turns out that it can be greatly simplified and sped up. I ran one million trials, and it only took a few minutes. The resulting plot is indistinguishable from the cosine curve, and the CHSH value is around 2.7.

I got rid of all the code that follows "Local Detetion Analysis of the Events Observed by Alice" and the corresponding code for Bob's detection, and replaced these with two very simple Do loops, one for Alice and one for Bob. The loop for Alice just replaces her detector 1 value with detector 2 value if Bob has a failed (f2) observation for that trial. The Do loop for Bob follows the same logic.

Here is the Mathematica notebook:
https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/optimizedVersion

[FrediFizzx]

WOLFRAM CLOUD
HTTP Error Code 404
page not found

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 You should pay up and eat that hat!

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&p=14388#p14386
.

[gill1109]

@gill1109 You should pay up and eat that hat!

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&p=14388#p14386
.

Fred, *you* should carefully study *my* rules of *my* game. If you’re any good at maths you will realise that there’s no point in trying to win my challenge.

And let me remind everyone of Joy’s recent published words https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9418997

That is not to say that Bell’s theorem [11] does not have a sound mathematical core. When stated as a mathematical theorem in probability theory, there can be no doubt about its validity. But my work on the subject [2]–[6] does not challenge this mathematical core, if it is viewed as a piece of mathematics. What it challenges are the metaphysical conclusions regarding locality and realism derived from that mathematical core. My work thus draws a sharp distinction between the mathematical core of Bell’s theorem and the metaphysical conclusions derived from it.

Here, I quote from his “Reply” to my “Comment” on his paper. In my “Comment” I formulate a mathematical theorem in the field of probability theory. Joy, he says, does not doubt its validity. What his work does, he says, is to challenge metaphysical conclusions derived from it.

Fine by me. I’m a mathematician working in probability theory and statistics, while he has a PhD in the philosophy of science / foundations of physics. I too think it is very important to draw a careful distinction between mathematics on the one hand, metaphysics on the other hand. I hope that mathematicians, physicists, and philosophers of science will do their best to learn one another’s languages and collaborate for the greater good of science as a whole, for the benefit of everyone.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 You should pay up and eat that hat!

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&p=14388#p14386
.

[gill1109]

@gill1109 You should pay up and eat that hat!
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&p=14388#p14386

First, write a program which wins *my* challenge, Fred. Here’s a version from 2001: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110137. It would be smart of you to find out what, exactly, my challenge is, before doing any coding. That could save you a lot of wasted energy. If you don’t like the conditions which I proposed in 2001 to Luigi Accardi, and later to Hess and Philip, and still later to yet other scientists, we have to explore whether there are conditions which we can both agree to.

I would be interested to know what your objections are to my 2001 challenge to my old friend Luigi.

I would be interested to hear from Michel whether or not he agrees that my challenge is essentially unbeatable.

My challenge involves writing programs for three networked computers. You can simulate three separate computers in one program. It is easy for anyone to check whether or not you are cheating, as John Reed and I did in recent days, with your latest Mathematica code. Part of our negotiations before making a bet will be about how the validity of your programs can be evaluated.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 You should pay up and eat that hat! Tis a pity when someone denies their challenge hasn't been beaten. Gill's theory is shot down big time.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&p=14388#p14386
.

[gill1109]

@gill1109 You should pay up and eat that hat! Tis a pity when someone denies their challenge hasn't been beaten. Gill's theory is shot down big time.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&p=14388#p14386
.

You keep saying that Fred, but that doesn’t make it true! Half a dozen people on this forum agree with me. As far as I know, only “local” and, of course, Joy, agree with you.

But anyway, go ahead and publish your paper in a decent peer reviewed journal. I’ll then submit a “Comment”. I will describe the experiments which some of us have been doing with your code.

[gill1109]

@gill1109 I hope you meant Cl(0,3)(R). Hmm... I just found out that Microsoft has a version of R that is better.
https://mran.microsoft.com/

Great! I don’t know about *better*. Maybe, better for you if you are working on a Windows computer

I will try it out, on my virtual Windows machine, on my Mac.

The enhanced better stuff we will probably never use. So far, I like Rstudio better.
.

The interesting thing is how Microsoft is enabling more and more (geeky?) unix and linux stuff within Windows. They know there’s a big community doing software development and doing machine learning and doing science which needs these tools and must have access to these platforms. It’s a good thing for us “consumers” that not one company has a monopoly any more.

Ha, you can run the MS copy of R plus their enhancements from RStudio. The enhancements give extra facilities for multi threading. On a multicore PC you should of course be able to gain a lot in speed by splitting computations over a number of cores. But that requires rewriting various algorithms, and communicating between the cores. I suspect that sometime, a lot of basic stuff in R will be rewritten to make use of modern PC architectures. Obviously a big simulation in which you simply repeat the same experiment a million times could in principle be run 10 times as fast on a multicore machine with more than 10 cores. My statistical computing colleagues tell me that that is already routine practice using already written R packages.

Can Mathematica take advantage of multiple cores?

Of course, there’s already a big industry in using a state of the art graphics card for program computations instead of for video games.

[local]

As far as I know, only “local” and, of course, Joy, agree with you.

Don't speak for me, Gill. I have made my views very clear and your misrepresentation is both disgusting and typical. Keep me out of your nonsense.

[gill1109]

As far as I know, only “local” and, of course, Joy, agree with you.

Don't speak for me, Gill. I have made my views very clear and your misrepresentation is both disgusting and typical. Keep me out of your nonsense.

Sorry, “local”, you keep aiming vicious personal attacks at me, so I supposed that was because you agree with Joy’s maths and Fred’s computing.

[local]

As far as I know, only “local” and, of course, Joy, agree with you.

Don't speak for me, Gill. I have made my views very clear and your misrepresentation is both disgusting and typical. Keep me out of your nonsense.

Sorry, “local”, you keep aiming vicious personal attacks at me, so I supposed that was because you agree with Joy’s maths and Fred’s computing.

In Gill's world, correcting his scholarship is a vicious personal attack. It's a common narcissistic trait to react badly to criticism. I will pray for him.

[gill1109]

As far as I know, only “local” and, of course, Joy, agree with you.

Don't speak for me, Gill. I have made my views very clear and your misrepresentation is both disgusting and typical. Keep me out of your nonsense.

Sorry, “local”, you keep aiming vicious personal attacks at me, so I supposed that was because you agree with Joy’s maths and Fred’s computing.

In Gill's world, correcting his scholarship is a vicious personal attack. It's a common narcissistic trait to react badly to criticism. I will pray for him.

Words like “disgusting” and “narcissistic” are not very scholarly. They reflect badly on the speaker. I’m sorry he is so upset. So far he talks a lot about his evaluation of my personality, but not at all about my mathematics. Anyway, what about “Minkwe”s claim that Bell makes a serious error?

[local]

So far he talks a lot about his evaluation of my personality, but not at all about my mathematics.

It is not your mathematics.

[FrediFizzx]

Great! I don’t know about *better*. Maybe, better for you if you are working on a Windows computer

I will try it out, on my virtual Windows machine, on my Mac.

The enhanced better stuff we will probably never use. So far, I like Rstudio better.
.

The interesting thing is how Microsoft is enabling more and more (geeky?) unix and linux stuff within Windows. They know there’s a big community doing software development and doing machine learning and doing science which needs these tools and must have access to these platforms. It’s a good thing for us “consumers” that not one company has a monopoly any more.

Ha, you can run the MS copy of R plus their enhancements from RStudio. The enhancements give extra facilities for multi threading. On a multicore PC you should of course be able to gain a lot in speed by splitting computations over a number of cores. But that requires rewriting various algorithms, and communicating between the cores. I suspect that sometime, a lot of basic stuff in R will be rewritten to make use of modern PC architectures. Obviously a big simulation in which you simply repeat the same experiment a million times could in principle be run 10 times as fast on a multicore machine with more than 10 cores. My statistical computing colleagues tell me that that is already routine practice using already written R packages.

Can Mathematica take advantage of multiple cores?

Of course, there’s already a big industry in using a state of the art graphics card for program computations instead of for video games.

Well, I'll be danged. Microsoft R did take over RStudio. And has the core threading. Yes, Mathematica uses all 4 cores on my computer. I only have the Home version which will only do 4 cores so can't take advantage of the graphics cards. I've been thinking about upgrading though. Now, if you would get the quaternion version of the simulation programmed in R we could test out the multithreading in Microsoft R.
.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 You should pay up and eat that hat! Tis a pity when someone denies their challenge hasn't been beaten. Gill's theory is shot down big time.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=481&p=14388#p14386
.

You keep saying that Fred, but that doesn’t make it true! Half a dozen people on this forum agree with me. As far as I know, only “local” and, of course, Joy, agree with you.

But anyway, go ahead and publish your paper in a decent peer reviewed journal. I’ll then submit a “Comment”. I will describe the experiments which some of us have been doing with your code.

You should pay up and eat that hat! Tis a pity when someone denies their challenge hasn't been beaten. Gill's theory is shot down big time.
Not our fault you don't understand the Mathematica code. This shoots down Bell's theory in an instant.



This shoots down Gill's theory in an instant.




.

[FrediFizzx]

What the heck do you think this is?


.