Coming Soon!

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

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Sep 07, 2021 7:11 am

Joy Christian wrote:
jreed wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:All I most recently have said was that John's code *does exactly the same* as your code, as anyone can check for themselves.

Still spewing nonsense I see which I snipped out except for this nonsense gem. John's code DOES NOT do exactly the same as my code! He destroyed all the code that makes it local! Time to get real, get over it, and move on! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.

By adding this extra magic spaghetti code to the calculation we can change it from non-local to local. SHAZAM . Now we're in Fred World. :lol:

Sorry, John. You are mistaken. You have aligned yourself with the dark force for too long to recognize that your argument is based on a strawman. That makes it completely fallacious.

Perhaps John has trouble following analytical math. That's the only thing I can think of to explain his behavior. Or... he's a hard core Bell fanatic.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby minkwe » Tue Sep 07, 2021 7:13 am

gill1109 wrote:BTW, I notice in your Mathematica code that you create vectors and matrices in advance and fill them in advance with 0's. Maybe you are incorporating this coding convention into your maths formulas. See the recent discussion with Michel about what you should do when a function is not defined in some circumstances. Many different ways to take account of that issue... He suggests that you redefine the domain. I suggest you redefine the range. Whatever you do, you should make clear what you are doing and make sure it makes sense in your problem, whether that is a computer simulation, some pure maths, or some mathematical physics.

This is a misrepresentation the conversation:
You said:
Gill wrote:Suppose I dream up some functions A and B, taking values in {-1, 1}, which are functions of
(1) a direction represented by an angle in the interval [0, 2 pi] and
(2) of a number “u” in the interval [0, 1].

I write programs, in Python, say, which compute A and B for any given values of the two arguments. I now run a computer simulation in which I simply pick two angles “a” and “b” and use Python’s built in pseudo random number generator to generate a long sequence of N draws “u_i” of random numbers between 0 and 1. My simulation then averages the N numbers A(a, u_i) * B(b, u_i). Take N equal to say 1 million.

I am not taking about QM or about experiments in laboratories with lasers and photodetectors. I’m talking about simple Python computer programs run on an ordinary PC.
Do you think it is likely that the result could be close to - cos(a - b), whatever a and b I chose? What would you expect to be the result?


You did not specify the domain, you specified the range. To which I replied:

minkwe wrote:Yes it is likely. I'm surprised you asked me this when I already have two computer programs that do just that. You see, you are missing an important detail in your "mind" experiment. The domain of A(.)B(.) is only defined for regions where the domains of both functions are defined. In pure mathematical terms, the functions in EPR-simple and EPR-clocked are just functions that are undefined for non-trivial regions of the 2-dimensional space of (a,u). And when you multiply the two together, you get an even more restricted domain but you do get close to -cos(a,b). Have some imagination, Richard.

Realizing your blunder, you decided to change the goal post by claiming I was cheating. My two functions do exactly what was requested.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby gill1109 » Tue Sep 07, 2021 8:23 am

minkwe wrote:This is a misrepresentation of the conversation:
You said:
Gill wrote:Suppose I dream up some functions A and B, taking values in {-1, 1}, which are functions of
(1) a direction represented by an angle in the interval [0, 2 pi] and
(2) of a number “u” in the interval [0, 1].
I write programs, in Python, say, which compute A and B for any given values of the two arguments. I now run a computer simulation in which I simply pick two angles “a” and “b” and use Python’s built in pseudo random number generator to generate a long sequence of N draws “u_i” of random numbers between 0 and 1. My simulation then averages the N numbers A(a, u_i) * B(b, u_i). Take N equal to say 1 million.

You did not specify the domain, you specified the range. To which I replied:
minkwe wrote:Yes it is likely. I'm surprised you asked me this when I already have two computer programs that do just that. You see, you are missing an important detail in your "mind" experiment. The domain of A(.)B(.) is only defined for regions where the domains of both functions are defined. In pure mathematical terms, the functions in EPR-simple and EPR-clocked are just functions that are undefined for non-trivial regions of the 2-dimensional space of (a,u). And when you multiply the two together, you get an even more restricted domain but you do get close to -cos(a,b). Have some imagination, Richard.

Realizing your blunder, you decided to change the goal post by claiming I was cheating. My two functions do exactly what was requested.


You did not notice that I also said "My simulation then averages the N numbers A(a, u_i) * B(b, u_i)." This makes very clear that A(a, u_i) and B(b, u_i) are always two numbers.

I also said that A and B are functions of (1) a direction represented by an angle in the interval [0, 2 pi] and (2) of a number “u” in the interval [0, 1]. That was my specification of the domain. Pretty explicit, I think. Too informal for you? I avoided the use heavy formal mathematical terminology because I would like physicists and computer programmers to understand me. I can assure you that every mathematician would understand exactly what I meant though some pure mathematicians might prefer more abstraction, less words, more symbols.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Sep 07, 2021 10:26 am

jreed wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:All I most recently have said was that John's code *does exactly the same* as your code, as anyone can check for themselves.

Still spewing nonsense I see which I snipped out except for this nonsense gem. John's code DOES NOT do exactly the same as my code! He destroyed all the code that makes it local! Time to get real, get over it, and move on! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

By adding this extra magic spaghetti code to the calculation we can change it from non-local to local. SHAZAM . Now we're in Fred World.

Ah! Gee thanks, I've got my own world! :mrgreen: Apparently, John (and Gill) are having some trouble following the analytical math in the paper and matching it to my code. Joy had no trouble with it at all. ??? Go figure. If you guys ask legitimate questions about it without the extra nonsense I will answer them. But then perhaps they don't want to know the truth. Seems to be a lot of people like that now-a-days that don't want to know the truth. It is actually a pretty sad state of affairs.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby gill1109 » Wed Sep 08, 2021 2:29 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
jreed wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:All I most recently have said was that John's code *does exactly the same* as your code, as anyone can check for themselves.

Still spewing nonsense I see which I snipped out except for this nonsense gem. John's code DOES NOT do exactly the same as my code! He destroyed all the code that makes it local! Time to get real, get over it, and move on! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

By adding this extra magic spaghetti code to the calculation we can change it from non-local to local. SHAZAM . Now we're in Fred World.

Ah! Gee thanks, I've got my own world! :mrgreen: Apparently, John (and Gill) are having some trouble following the analytical math in the paper and matching it to my code. Joy had no trouble with it at all. ??? Go figure. If you guys ask legitimate questions about it without the extra nonsense I will answer them. But then perhaps they don't want to know the truth. Seems to be a lot of people like that now-a-days that don't want to know the truth. It is actually a pretty sad state of affairs.
.

Fred, my name is Richard.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Sep 08, 2021 3:01 am

gill1109 wrote:Fred, my name is Richard.

What??? Your name isn't Gill also?
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby gill1109 » Wed Sep 08, 2021 4:45 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Here is a link to the paper again.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/

I asked you several questions about the analytical formulas, but you didn't answer all of them. Thanks for your clarification of how you deal with "undefined". Essentially, everything "undefined" gets the value zero so when you add undefined and defined quantities you end up with the sum of the defined quantities.

Now my other question, reformulated:

According to (19), A6 = +/- A3
According to (16), A3 is not defined if k_A = k_B
Later it is said that trials are matched according to their value of k, so k = k_A = k_B
This means that A6 is not defined.

According to (13) therefore, A = A4 + A2
According to (17), A4 = A1 when trials are correctly matched
So, A = A1 + A2
Therefore, A = − sign [cos(a − theta)] or − sign [sin{a − (theta + xi)}] depending on whether |cos(a−theta)| is larger or smaller than beta cos^2(theta / phi)

I don't think this corresponds to your Mathematica code.

At the end of the section you do explain that you do not actually follow the analytical formulas given so far! This is the verbal description starting with the sentence "However, lacking the nontrivial properties of quaternions, the simple functions such as cos(a − theta) we have used in the definitions (13) to (26) require somewhat elaborate strategy to emulate the spinorial sign changes." Here you say explicitly that you have to change the formulas you have used so far.

So far I could not convert that text into some analytical formulas. But it seems to me that here you are proposing to do something non-local because what you do depends on looking at all of Alice's and Bob's results *at the same time*.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:10 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Here is a link to the paper again.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/

Here is a correct link to the paper,
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/2

gill1109 wrote:I asked you several questions about the analytical formulas, but you didn't answer all of them. Thanks for your clarification of how you deal with "undefined". Essentially, everything "undefined" gets the value zero so when you add undefined and defined quantities you end up with the sum of the defined quantities.

There is nothing "undefined". "No result" is defined. There are no zeros.

gill1109 wrote:Now my other question, reformulated:

According to (19), A6 = +/- A3
According to (16), A3 is not defined if k_A = k_B
Later it is said that trials are matched according to their value of k, so k = k_A = k_B
This means that A6 is not defined.

A3 is defined if k_A = k_B. It is "no result". A6 is also "no result" in that case.

According to (13) therefore, A = A4 + A2

No. A=A4.
According to (17), A4 = A1 when trials are correctly matched
So, A = A1 + A2

Yes, A4 = A1. No. A = A4.
Therefore, A = − sign [cos(a − theta)] or − sign [sin{a − (theta + xi)}] depending on whether |cos(a−theta)| is larger or smaller than beta cos^2(theta / phi)

Yes, when A = A4.
I don't think this corresponds to your Mathematica code.

With my corrections it corresponds exactly to the code.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:19 am

gill1109 wrote:At the end of the section you do explain that you do not actually follow the analytical formulas given so far! This is the verbal description starting with the sentence "However, lacking the nontrivial properties of quaternions, the simple functions such as cos(a − theta) we have used in the definitions (13) to (26) require somewhat elaborate strategy to emulate the spinorial sign changes." Here you say explicitly that you have to change the formulas you have used so far.

Yes, we are going to change that statement now that we have the quaternion version so that we don't have to "emulate" the spinorial sign changes any more.

The only thing that is going to change for the analytical definitions is "emulate" is going to come out for A6 and B6.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby gill1109 » Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:29 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
I don't think this corresponds to your Mathematica code.

With my corrections it corresponds exactly to the code.

It corresponds to part, but not all, of your code. In other words, if I *only* implement formulas (13) to (26), in R, say, I will not reproduce your results.

You say "We therefore propose that the results observed by Alice (who could be spacelike separated from Bob) are specified by the function... It is important to appreciate that the above prescription for A(a,θk) = ±1 is manifestly local-realistic ... Similar to the local prescription for Alice, we propose that the results observed by Bob is specified by the function..."

These statements are, I think, misleading, because though the description so far is manifestly local-realistic, it is not the complete description.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:47 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Here is a link to the paper again.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/

Here is a correct link to the paper,
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/2

gill1109 wrote:I asked you several questions about the analytical formulas, but you didn't answer all of them. Thanks for your clarification of how you deal with "undefined". Essentially, everything "undefined" gets the value zero so when you add undefined and defined quantities you end up with the sum of the defined quantities.

There is nothing "undefined". "No result" is defined. There are no zeros.

gill1109 wrote:Now my other question, reformulated:

According to (19), A6 = +/- A3
According to (16), A3 is not defined if k_A = k_B
Later it is said that trials are matched according to their value of k, so k = k_A = k_B
This means that A6 is not defined.

A3 is defined if k_A = k_B. It is "no result". A6 is also "no result" in that case.

According to (13) therefore, A = A4 + A2

No. A=A4.
According to (17), A4 = A1 when trials are correctly matched
So, A = A1 + A2

Yes, A4 = A1. No. A = A4.
Therefore, A = − sign [cos(a − theta)] or − sign [sin{a − (theta + xi)}] depending on whether |cos(a−theta)| is larger or smaller than beta cos^2(theta / phi)

Yes, when A = A4.

Whoops! Made a mistake here. When A = A4 = A1, Then it is just , A = − sign [cos(a − theta)] because A1 is already determined to be greater than the HV process.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:55 am

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
I don't think this corresponds to your Mathematica code.

With my corrections it corresponds exactly to the code.

It corresponds to part, but not all, of your code. In other words, if I *only* implement formulas (13) to (26), in R, say, I will not reproduce your results.

You say "We therefore propose that the results observed by Alice (who could be spacelike separated from Bob) are specified by the function... It is important to appreciate that the above prescription for A(a,θk) = ±1 is manifestly local-realistic ... Similar to the local prescription for Alice, we propose that the results observed by Bob is specified by the function..."

These statements are, I think, misleading, because though the description so far is manifestly local-realistic, it is not the complete description.

It is the complete description with "emulate" taken out of A6 and B6. If you implement (13) to (26) in R correctly it will reproduce our results. Do it, I will help you with it if you wish.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Sep 08, 2021 8:21 am

Perhaps I should explain how the analytical definitions from the paper match up with the code? Sure, might as well. But I believe it is already explained in the paper. Here is the current version of the quaternion version of the code.

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... -forum3.nb
EPRsims/newCS-15-S3quat-prodcalc-forum3.pdf

And a link to the paper.

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/2

So, in the paper we have the main equations (13) and (20) which may be a little confusing at first until you go thru the other definitions. Think of just one event. Then A and B will just be equal to 1 of the 3 possibilities. The other 2 possibilities at that time will be "no result". This in the code here,

outA=Sort[Catenate[{listA4,outA2,listA6}],#1[[3]]<#2[[3]]&]; (*Combine lists and sort*) (completely local)
outB=Sort[Catenate[{listB4,outB2,listB6}],#1[[3]]<#2[[3]]&]; (*Combine lists and sort*)

Next we have the definitions that correspond to the code. For A1, A2, B1 and B2. The code is this,

outA1=Select[outAa,MemberQ[#,g1]&]; (*Split outAa into outA1 and outA2*)(completely local)
outA2=Select[outAa,MemberQ[#,f1]&];
outB1=Select[outBb,MemberQ[#,g2]&]; (*Split outBb into outB1 and outB2*)(completely local)
outB2=Select[outBb,MemberQ[#,f2]&];

What they do is separate the events for pre-result outAa and outBb into A1 and B1 events that are greater than the HV process and for A2 and B2, events that are less than the HV process. Exactly like it says in the paper for eqs. (14), (15), (21) and (22). Next in the paper we have A3 and B3 eqs. (16) and (23). The code for that is,

listA3=Select[outA1,Intersection[{#[[3]]},listad3]!={#[[3]]}&];(completely local)
listB3=Select[outB1,Intersection[{#[[3]]},listbd3]!={#[[3]]}&];

And easy to see that it is for events from outA1 and outB1 that don't match via trial numbers via outA4 and outB4. Then of course we have A4 and B4 from eqs. (17) and (24) for which the code is,

listA4=Select[outA1,Intersection[{#[[3]]},list23]=={#[[3]]}&]; (completely local)
listB4=Select[outB1,Intersection[{#[[3]]},list13]=={#[[3]]}&];

Also easy to see that it is for events from outA1 and outB1 where the trial numbers do match. Perhaps we should reverse n3 and n4 to make the flow better in the paper. Then we have A5 and B5 in the paper eqs. (18) and (25) for which the code is,

(completely local)


I should mention here that A5 and B5 are recorded as the 5th element for every event in the tables for the A and B sides. And these are for use in A6 and B6 eqs. (19) and (26). Which in the code are,

Do[If[listA3[[i]][[2]]==listA3[[i]][[5]],qaaq[[i]]=1,qaaq[[i]]=Re[listA36[[i]]**listA37[[i]]]];
listA6[[i]]={listA3[[i]][[1]],qaaq[[i]]*listA3[[i]][[2]],listA3[[i]][[3]],listA3[[i]][[4]],listA3[[i]][[5]],listA3[[i]][[6]],listA3[[i]][[7]]}, {i, M}](completely local)
Do[If[listB3[[i]][[2]]==listB3[[i]][[5]],qbbq[[i]]=1,qbbq[[i]]=Re[listB36[[i]]**listB37[[i]]]];
listB6[[i]]={listB3[[i]][[1]],qbbq[[i]]*listB3[[i]][[2]],listB3[[i]][[3]],listB3[[i]][[4]],listB3[[i]][[5]],listB3[[i]][[6]],listB3[[i]][[7]]}, {i, M2}](completely local)

Yep, those two are doozies but you can see the spinorial sign changes here qaaq[[i]]*listA3[[i]][[2]] and here qbbq[[i]]*listB3[[i]][[2]]. So, "emulates" comes out of the paper description. Ok, I think that is it. Questions?
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:29 pm

So, all the code items above are completely local. Perhaps someone could demonstrate where it could possibly be non-local. But they can't. That means the analytical definitions are all local also. But I will add a little more explanation. A typical outA looks like this,

In[114]:= outA[[1]]
Out[114]= {138,-1,1,f1,-1,Quaternion[-0.0489686,0.,0.,-0.9988],Quaternion[0.0489686,0.,0.,-0.9988]}

It is a table row of 7 elements. Every event has this.

1. the angle for a
2. the outcome for A
3. the trial number
4. an HV process ID to be able to separate events into A1 and A2
5. the outcome for A5
6. Quaternion for Da**Ls1[[i]]
7. Quaternion for -Ls1[[i]]**Da. It picks up a minus sign from the order flip.

Same thing for the B side
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:07 am

Ok, no questions or comments so Bell's junk physics theory is shot down to pieces and Gill's junk mathematics theory is shot down to pieces. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby gill1109 » Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:35 am

FrediFizzx wrote:Ok, no questions or comments so Bell's junk physics theory is shot down to pieces and Gill's junk mathematics theory is shot down to pieces. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.

Please be patient, Fred. I will shoot down your results later. I'll be busy with some other projects for a while, so don't hold your breath.
Last edited by FrediFizzx on Thu Sep 09, 2021 3:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: nonsense deleted
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:17 am

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:Ok, no questions or comments so Bell's junk physics theory is shot down to pieces and Gill's junk mathematics theory is shot down to pieces. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
.

Please be patient, Fred. I will shoot down your results later. I'll be busy with some other projects for a while, so don't hold your breath.

LOL! Let me save you some time. It's impossible to shoot it down now that the spinorial sign changes are biting you in the ass with your tests that are statistically insignificant anyways. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: You are finished. Time to get real, get over it, and move on!
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby gill1109 » Thu Sep 09, 2021 4:43 am

My tests are not statistical. I test whether or not your code satisfies locality. In the sense of distributed computing (computer science).

My tests are superfluous for me, since I know that Bell’s theorem, as a theorem in computer science, is true. But other people find them amusing. :ugeek: :ugeek: :ugeek:
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Sep 09, 2021 6:34 am

gill1109 wrote:My tests are not statistical. I test whether or not your code satisfies locality. In the sense of distributed computing (computer science).

My tests are superfluous for me, since I know that Bell’s theorem, as a theorem in computer science, is true. But other people find them amusing. :ugeek: :ugeek: :ugeek:

Double LOL! Doing m=1 twice is totally statistically insignificant but it doesn't matter anyways because the spinorial sign changes bite you in the ass. And I swear I thought you were a statistician. Guess I was wrong. Sorry for your delusion, but Gill's junk math theory has now been shot down to little itty bity pieces. Bell's junk physics theory was shot down years ago. You should have gotten a clue from that. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol:
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Coming Soon!

Postby gill1109 » Fri Sep 10, 2021 1:33 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
gill1109 wrote:My tests are not statistical. I test whether or not your code satisfies locality. In the sense of distributed computing (computer science).

My tests are superfluous for me, since I know that Bell’s theorem, as a theorem in computer science, is true. But other people find them amusing. :ugeek: :ugeek: :ugeek:

Double LOL! Doing m=1 twice is totally statistically insignificant but it doesn't matter anyways because the spinorial sign changes bite you in the ass. And I swear I thought you were a statistician. Guess I was wrong. Sorry for your delusion, but Gill's junk math theory has now been shot down to little itty bity pieces. Bell's junk physics theory was shot down years ago. You should have gotten a clue from that. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol:
.

My test is not a statistical test. It tests in a deterministic way whether or not from a computational viewpoint your code respects local realism.

The answer is that it cannot, since ordinary PCs operate in a deterministic flatland.
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