FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 I suspect you're just being lazy. Ask what is the first thing you don't understand. Heck, I am way too lazy to write this in another code. Plus having more fun working on other things.
.
gill1109 wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 I suspect you're just being lazy. Ask what is the first thing you don't understand. Heck, I am way too lazy to write this in another code. Plus having more fun working on other things.
.
The first thing I don’t understand is how you actually match, and the second thing I don’t understand is what the outcomes then actually are.
Joy Christian wrote:.
I have two questions:
(1) I am not sure whether quaternions are necessary or add anything to your model. In what way do they improve the model?
and
(2) Would the final plot be better, or get closer to the -cosine curve, with a larger number of trials; say, 2 or 3 million trials?
.
Joy Christian wrote:.
I have two questions:
(1) I am not sure whether quaternions are necessary or add anything to your model. In what way do they improve the model?
and
(2) Would the final plot be better, or get closer to the -cosine curve, with a larger number of trials; say, 2 or 3 million trials?
.
gill1109 wrote:Once Fred (or someone else) has written down math formulas or pseudo code describing what he is doing, we can investigate analytically whether or not the simulated curves will converge to the negative cosine. I think that if he wants to publish his findings, he’ll have to do exactly that. He has to make his research ‘reproducible’ and transparent.
gill1109 wrote:Joy Christian wrote:.
I have two questions:
(1) I am not sure whether quaternions are necessary or add anything to your model. In what way do they improve the model?
and
(2) Would the final plot be better, or get closer to the -cosine curve, with a larger number of trials; say, 2 or 3 million trials?
.
Once Fred (or someone else) has written down math formulas or pseudo code describing what he is doing, we can investigate analytically whether or not the simulated curves will converge to the negative cosine. I think that if he wants to publish his findings, he’ll have to do exactly that. He has to make his research ‘reproducible’ and transparant.
jreed wrote:Once the program reaches a final stable state, I can try to give a description of what it's doing.
jreed wrote:Thanks Fred. I'll see if I can explain it in pseudo code. I don't program in R.
FrediFizzx wrote:jreed wrote:Once the program reaches a final stable state, I can try to give a description of what it's doing.
Most of those "updates" were different versions like CHSH, Joy's quaternion and GA models. It's stable. Here you go.
EPRsims/newCS-13-forum.nb
But most likely, Gill will never understand it unless you program it in R. And then, he probably still won't understand it and probably won't want to understand it because it will kill his "world".
jreed wrote:Thanks Fred. I'll see if I can explain it in pseudo-code. I don't program in R.
gill1109 wrote:It will not kill my world. You and I live in different worlds, Fred. Completely uncommunicating, parallel, worlds.
One cannot play with the code without buying Mathematica. Actually, not quite true, I get myself a trial version for a few week's free trial once in a while. I could try to do that again. Results in a stream of junk mail from Wolfram. But I'm not in a hurry this time. I think Fred will agree that if I run his program but with N = 1 repeatedly, independently (ie with new random seed each time), the collected results won't violate Bell's inequality.
FrediFizzx wrote:Well, actually that might work if the collected terms are averaged properly. But changing the seed each time is stupid. That is like having no seed at all.
gill1109 wrote:Indeed, it should work if the collected terms are averaged properly.
Every time you start up Mathematica and take a new random sample, the seed is different from what it was the time before. Unless you deliberately set it to be the same, which is useful for testing purposes. Are you saying that Mathematica is stupid?
jreed wrote:Thanks Fred. I'll see if I can explain it in pseudo code. I don't program in R.
jreed wrote:jreed wrote:Thanks Fred. I'll see if I can explain it in pseudo code. I don't program in R.
I've looked at the code for the final version you sent, and I'm confused. Here are some questions:
In the do loops to generate particle data, there is an inner If statement and an outer If statement. The inner If doesn't need to be inside the outer If as far as I can see.
In those same loops, there are several Sign[Cos... statements, and several Sign[Sin... statements. Why are the Sign[Sin statements there?
There is a lot of complex Mathematica stuff to match trial numbers. This was never necessary in previous versions. Why was it put there?
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 223 guests