Gordon Watson wrote:Fred, as you increase the number of trials, N, so you will approach the infinite case in the limit. Gordon
No sh*t Sherlock! Perfect example of a nonsense post.




.
Gordon Watson wrote:Fred, as you increase the number of trials, N, so you will approach the infinite case in the limit. Gordon
FrediFizzx wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:This expression seems a bit odd to me.
In order to get the probabilities for each of the four outcome pairs say in a large simulation, they first have to be averaged over many trials per (a-b) angle. It seems to me that in a proper simulation each of the four probabilities are going to converge to 1/4 for very large number of trials. At least that is what I am finding with our latest simulation.
Ave ++ = 0.248903
Ave -- = 0.248803
Ave +- = 0.246508
Ave -+ = 0.255786
That was for 10,000 trials. For 5 million trials,
Ave ++ = 0.249787
Ave -- = 0.249991
Ave +- = 0.250293
Ave -+ = 0.249929
Much closer to 1/4 each. So, for analytical purposes, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assign 1/4 to each of the four outcome pair probabilities.
Ok, now for the next part of this.
QM assigns for those 4 outcome probabilities,
Again, in a simulation with many trials, we have to averageand
over all the (a-b) angles. Lo and behold, when we do that we obtain,
,
,
Because.
So, it seems to me that all of the parts of the original E(a, b) expression are all equal to 1/4. Analytically-wise.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests