The (still) open one-sided bet.

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

Re: The (still) open one-sided bet.

Postby Xray » Fri May 09, 2014 3:47 pm

gill1109 wrote:
You seem not to realise,..., that among the supervisors of my supervisors of my supervisors were ... de Vries, Korteweg, van der Waals ... Leibniz, Calvin. That is quite a lot of accumulated wisdom which I inherited. I went to the same college as Sir R. A. Fisher and John Venn. Was taught by Stephen Hawking, among other physicists. By John H Conway, among other mathematicians. By the last living collaborators and direct followers of R A Fisher (A.W. Edwards). By Sir David Kendal and Sir Peter Whittle. Incidentally, my mother was one of Alan Turing's computers at one of the "out-stations" of Bletchley Park. My father was an experimental physicist.


Gill, thanks for this information. It now explains your silly (a good Bell word) approach to Watson's essay. (Have a look at your references to all sorts of totally irrelevant statistical terms -- and other avoidance techniques.)

I'm more fortunate, my parents were primitive carpenters. So I tend nail everything; nonsense especially.

Thus confirming your unique theory of inherited wisdom; but Oh what a difference Jeffreys' DNA would have made!

Regards,

Xray
Xray
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2014 1:23 pm

Re: The (still) open one-sided bet.

Postby minkwe » Fri May 09, 2014 7:33 pm

gill1109 wrote:Michel Fodje is apparently unware of them and does not know the relevant literature, either.

Richard Gill always throws around empty accusations like this one, when there's no valid argument left for him to make. Once his arguments supporting Bell's theorem failed woefully, he then claimed that Bell's theorem was not a theorem, and that it was not the work of Bell. A quick check revealed that Richard not only attributes "Bell's theorem" to Bell in a very recent article, but also claims to be proving it (the non-theorem).

When his arguments about inequalities and the CHSH fail woefully, he then writes on every forum he knows about that we should forget about the CHSH and inequalities.

When he is challenged to produce a non-real/statistical error simulation to demonstrate his claims about non-real/statistical violation of inequalities, he again fails woefully, then claims he is talking about samples not the population. Yet he is still unable to produce the non-real/statistical error simulation. Yet he continues to believe in non-realism, and he continues to believe that a genuine Bell test experiment will be done soon, which would violate the inequalities.

Confronted with an article which disproves him, he claims the content of the article is false because it is written on "dirty paper". Forgetting that he just boasted about being invited by one of the paper's editors to a conference.

Having nothing left to say, he simply accuses the other side of not understanding some statistics/probability which he still is unable to clearly enunciate as being relevant for the topic at hand.

Worse still, he then clings to a suggestion, just as ridiculous as the idea that he must be right because he shook hands with someone who shook hands with the Queen.
minkwe
 
Posts: 986
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:22 am

Re: The (still) open one-sided bet.

Postby gill1109 » Sat May 10, 2014 6:17 am

Xray wrote:
gill1109 wrote:You seem not to realise,..., that among the supervisors of my supervisors of my supervisors were ... de Vries, Korteweg, van der Waals ... Leibniz, Calvin. That is quite a lot of accumulated wisdom which I inherited. I went to the same college as Sir R. A. Fisher and John Venn. Was taught by Stephen Hawking, among other physicists. By John H Conway, among other mathematicians. By the last living collaborators and direct followers of R A Fisher (A.W. Edwards). By Sir David Kendal and Sir Peter Whittle. Incidentally, my mother was one of Alan Turing's computers at one of the "out-stations" of Bletchley Park. My father was an experimental physicist.

Gill, thanks for this information. It now explains your silly (a good Bell word) approach to Watson's essay. (Have a look at your references to all sorts of totally irrelevant statistical terms -- and other avoidance techniques.)
I'm more fortunate, my parents were primitive carpenters. So I tend nail everything; nonsense especially.
Thus confirming your unique theory of inherited wisdom; but Oh what a difference Jeffreys' DNA would have made!
Regards,
Xray


Xray, you didn't realise that I am joking!!!!

The facts I tell you are true, but I am not trying to impress you, or anybody for that matter. Almost any Dutch mathematics PhD today was the student of the student of ... Leibniz and Calvin, and usually via a lot of very impressive physicists. I have no theory of inherited wisdom. Most of my ancestors were farmers or peasants.

JJC claims that the fact that he was a student of Shimony makes him a top expert on Bell inequalities.
I am saying that according to his argument, I must be a super-genius. Which I'm obviously not. Hence the argument must be wrong. QED.

It was an argument to show that JJC's argument is no good.

Moreover, when we notice that he has been trying to win an impossible bet for weeks, we must conclude that he was not a very good student of Shimony's. Certainly not good at elementary mathematics and logic. It's also an argument to point out that he slanders and tells lies, or at least, says things are true while he can have no possible way to know whether they are true or not. For instance saying that I was not a physicist, and not even a mathematician. That I must have once gate-crashed a lecture by Stephen Hawking.

This kind of remark tells us a lot about the character of the person who makes them.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The (still) open one-sided bet.

Postby Joy Christian » Sat May 10, 2014 6:36 am

I will ignore the personal attacks on me and on my academic and research background launched above by Richard Gill, and stick to the hard facts:

The readers of this forum have two options: (1) they can either believe the propaganda constantly produced by Richard Gill, or (2) they can evaluate the evidence after evidence, and explanation after explanation, I have presented in support of my discovery that EPR-Bohm correlations are correlations among the points of a parallelized 3-sphere (which is one of the solutions of Einstein's field equations, namely the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker solution). The choice is theirs.

Let me present my evidence once again:

(1) A simple explanation of my proposed experiment, with links to relevant papers.

(2) The proof that there indeed exist N vectors, s_k and -s_k, appearing in equation (16) of my first experimental paper: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531.

(3) Detailed explanation of my local-realistic framework for the quantum correlations, presented in 15 papers and one of my books on the subject.

(4) A 2D simulation of my 3-sphere model for the EPR-Bohm correlation.

(5) The most accurate simulation of my 3-sphere model for the EPR-Bohm correlation.

And finally, a nice summary by Michel Fodje of how Richard Gill operates---it is quite revealing.

His present tactic is to avoid paying up the 10,000 Euros he owes me for producing the N vectors in the item (2) above.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The (still) open one-sided bet.

Postby gill1109 » Sat May 10, 2014 8:16 pm

Joy Christian still hasn't produced the two sets of N vectors.

Michel Fodje has explained why it is impossible to do so.

It's not clear to me whether or not Christian understands this. He seems a bit confused at present.

I would love to pay up 10 000 and see Christian vindicated, but his part of the task is essentially the same as generating two positive integers p and q such that p^2 = 2 q^2. It simply isn't going to happen.

The bet and the challenge were explicitly designed to probe the quality of Christian's writing. Ordinary folk are unsure about technical arguments about division algebras, but everyone can understand Euclid's theorem that the square root of 2 is irrational.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The (still) open one-sided bet.

Postby gill1109 » Sat May 10, 2014 8:20 pm

PS Michel has shown that the challenge is unwinnable. Though the challenge is formally still open, it might therefore just as well not exist. This forum topic may be closed.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1245
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The (still) open one-sided bet.

Postby Joy Christian » Sat May 10, 2014 8:37 pm

gill1109 wrote:PS Michel has shown that the challenge is unwinnable. Though the challenge is formally still open, it might therefore just as well not exist. This forum topic may be closed.


Certainly. As soon as you pay up the 10,000 Euros you owe me for producing the "impossible" N vectors, s_k and -s_k, appearing in equation (16) of my first
experimental paper: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531. It is all too evident that your current cheap tactic is to avoid paying up the 10,000 Euros you owe me.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Previous

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 4 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library