My claim to collect the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard Gill

[gris]

[quote="Joy Christian"]Once again Richard Gill is bobbing and weaving and finding ridiculous excuses.

The matter is extremely elementary." end quote

Now who is bobbing and weaving then? The question I put to you - again (!) - is are you even in part in it for the money? Yes or no?

[Joy Christian]

I have revised my simulation with the following note, which removes the apparent ambiguity in the directions of angular momentum:

## Note that, despite appearances, u and v specify just one set of directions
## for the angular momentum (and likewise the vectors -u and -v). It is very
## easy to check that there is one-to-one map between the set of directions u
## and the set of directions v. In other words, for every u_i there is a v_j
## such that u_i = v_j, and for every v_i there is a u_j such that v_i = u_j.

[Heinera]

I have revised my simulation with the following note, which removes the apparent ambiguity in the directions of angular momentum:

## Note that, despite appearances, u and v specify just one set of directions
## for the angular momentum (and likewise the vectors -u and -v). It is very
## easy to check that there is one-to-one map between the set of directions u
## and the set of directions v. In other words, for every u_i there is a v_j
## such that u_i = v_j, and for every v_i there is a u_j such that v_i = u_j.

Your last sentence would mean that v and u are just permutations of each other. But that is not the case for the two set of directions v and u in your program. The two sets are completely disjoint. No element of u is to be found anywhere in v, and vice versa.

[Joy Christian]

Your last sentence would mean that v and u are just permutations of each other. But that is not the case for the two set of directions v and u in your program. The two sets are completely disjoint. No element of u is to be found anywhere in v, and vice versa.

Prove it. If you can't, then withdraw your claim (also, don't forget to actually look at how u and v are defined in the revised version).

[Heinera]

Your last sentence would mean that v and u are just permutations of each other. But that is not the case for the two set of directions v and u in your program. The two sets are completely disjoint. No element of u is to be found anywhere in v, and vice versa.

Prove it. If you can't, then withdraw your claim (also, don't forget to actually look at how u and v are defined in the revised version).

Let's just check to see if any of the first ten elements of u is to be found anywhere in v:

Code: Select all

> match(u[,1:10],v)
 [1] NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Nope.

(By the way, you should do these kinds of checks yourself before you post).

[Joy Christian]

Your last sentence would mean that v and u are just permutations of each other. But that is not the case for the two set of directions v and u in your program. The two sets are completely disjoint. No element of u is to be found anywhere in v, and vice versa.

Prove it. If you can't, then withdraw your claim (also, don't forget to actually look at how u and v are defined in the revised version).

Let's just check to see if any of the first ten elements of u is to be found anywhere in v:

Code: Select all

> match(u[,1:10],v)
 [1] NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Nope.

(By the way, you should do these kinds of checks yourself before you post).

This is silly. There are at least 100,000 elements of u, not 10. Prove your assertion analytically. u and v are given by a pair of very simple analytical functions.

PS: I just checked for 10,000 and there are lots and lots of matches.

[Heinera]

Since your assertion was that all elements could be found in the other vector, is is obviously sufficient to show that the first 10 can't be found.

[Joy Christian]

Since your assertion was that all elements could be found in the other vector, is is obviously sufficient to show that the first 10 can't be found.

That is not my assertion. My assertion is this:

## Note that, despite appearances, u and v specify just one set of directions
## for the angular momentum (and likewise the vectors -u and -v). It is very
## easy to check that there is one-to-one map between the set of directions u
## and the set of directions v. In other words, for every u_i there is a v_j
## such that u_i = v_j, and for every v_i there is a u_j such that v_i = u_j.

[Heinera]

Since your assertion was that all elements could be found in the other vector, is is obviously sufficient to show that the first 10 can't be found.

That is not my assertion. My assertion is this:

## Note that, despite appearances, u and v specify just one set of directions
## for the angular momentum (and likewise the vectors -u and -v). It is very
## easy to check that there is one-to-one map between the set of directions u
## and the set of directions v. In other words, for every u_i there is a v_j
## such that u_i = v_j, and for every v_i there is a u_j such that v_i = u_j.

Let me rephrase then: Since your assertion was that "for every u_i there is a v_j such that u_i = v_j," it is obviously sufficient to show that this is not true for i=1..10.

[Joy Christian]

Since your assertion was that all elements could be found in the other vector, is is obviously sufficient to show that the first 10 can't be found.

That is not my assertion. My assertion is this:

## Note that, despite appearances, u and v specify just one set of directions
## for the angular momentum (and likewise the vectors -u and -v). It is very
## easy to check that there is one-to-one map between the set of directions u
## and the set of directions v. In other words, for every u_i there is a v_j
## such that u_i = v_j, and for every v_i there is a u_j such that v_i = u_j.

Let me rephrase then: Since your assertion was that "for every u_i there is a v_j such that u_i = v_j," it is obviously sufficient to show that this is not true for i=1..10.

I find your assertion quite ridiculous.

It is enough to note that the vector v_j = y e_x + x e_y is the vector u_i = x e_x + y e_y reflected along the line defined by x = y.

From this observation it is easy to see that "for every u_i there is a v_j such that u_i = v_j."

[Heinera]

I find your assertion quite ridiculous.

It is enough to note that the vector v_j = y e_x + x e_y is the vector u_i = x e_x + y e_y reflected along the line defined by x = y.

From this observation it is easy to see that "for every u_i there is a v_j such that u_i = v_j."

So do you mean that a vector reflected around the diagonal maps to itself?

[Joy Christian]

I find your assertion quite ridiculous.

It is enough to note that the vector v_j = y e_x + x e_y is the vector u_i = x e_x + y e_y reflected along the line defined by x = y.

From this observation it is easy to see that "for every u_i there is a v_j such that u_i = v_j."

So do you mean that a vector reflected around the diagonal maps to itself?

Read my experimental paper. Then read Gill's challenge. Then read the comments in my simulation. That will answer your question.

[FrediFizzx]

This post is deleted because it was already asked and answered. Please stay on topic. -fd

[Heinera]

And then Brendan finally closed the FQXi thread. Not a year too soon.

[Joy Christian]

And then Brendan finally closed the FQXi thread. Not a year too soon.

This reminds me: the second edition of my book has been released, just in time for the 50th anniversary of Bell's infamous paper:



Also, I have just added these comments on my blog: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/:

"In addition to these simulations, I have also won the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard Gill for producing the N angular momentum vectors, u_k and -u_k, appearing in equation (16) of my proposed experiment. I won his challenge in May 2014, by producing these two simulations."

Finally, I have also published a new paper, just in time for the 50th anniversary of Bell's infamous paper: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=55#p2222.

[gill1109]

Joy claimed that sign(a.u_j) =sign(a.v_j) for all j and for any a. Hence the v_j are superfluous.

I calculated the four correlations using the u_j only and unfortunately they did not deliver the goods.

In the meantime a certain Hugh Marston has put in a submission. It seems he is well placed to win, being very familiar with Christuan's work.

Christian's submission is rejected, I am now checking Marston's. Maybe he will be the lucky winner.

[gill1109]

I guess the FQXi thread got closed because of a lady called Judy Nabb. She got very aggressive towards me so I kept reporting her posts as inappropriate. I guess she complained to the management. And they got tired (probably: they got pleased to have an excuse to shut it down).

No doubt a lot of folks will be turning up on this forum in the near future!

[gill1109]

Just received the definitive acceptance note from Statistical Science re. http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5103

Two years, four revisions. Thanks to JJC in the acknowledgements.

[gris]

That is then a quantum leap I guess.

[Joy Christian]

Joy claimed that sign(a.u_j) =sign(a.v_j) for all j and for any a. Hence the v_j are superfluous.

I calculated the four correlations using the u_j only and unfortunately they did not deliver the goods.

In the meantime a certain Hugh Marston has put in a submission. It seems he is well placed to win, being very familiar with Christuan's work.

Christian's submission is rejected, I am now checking Marston's. Maybe he will be the lucky winner.

Richard,

You haven’t noticed. I revised my simulation yesterday, with u and v defined as they were in my original submission 19 days ago. The two .txt files are also revised. I was misled by your rejections and misinterpretations. I should have stuck with my original submission and pointed out the correct interpretation to you. The correct interpretation is now in the commentary in the simulation here: http://rpubs.com/jjc/16531 (please note the revised definitions of u and v).

I am not concerned about the priority between myself and Hugh Matlock. My concern is that you are being disingenuous. You have been changing the rules of the game ever since we started the discussion several months ago, and I believe you will continue to do so.

In any case, I have declared myself a winner on my blog. It is the physics that counts. I have won the challenge as far as the physics of my experimental proposal is concerned.

I am not a lawyer like you, and don't care much about your leagal tactics. This is what I have declared on my blog:

"In addition to these simulations, I have also won the 10,000 Euros offered by Richard Gill for producing the N angular momentum vectors, u_k and -u_k, appearing in equation (16) of my proposed experiment. I won his challenge in May 2014, by producing these two simulations."

It is worth noting here that if the confusion Richard exhibits in his comments is genuine, then it is because he is not a physicist. He has shown no understanding of how rotations are composed and behave in the physical space. This is quite a handicap. He is simply quite ignorant of some very basic facts about the physics of rotations.