GAViewer Simulation No Hidden Variable

[gill1109]

I’m not embarrassed.

Then do it right here as Fred asked.

Gull’s sketch of a proof is written out in plenty of detail here https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/547039/help-understanding-prof-steve-gulls-explanation-of-bells-theorem. Please, Fred, could you tell me where you first need help understanding this proof.

[FrediFizzx]

I’m not embarrassed.

Then do it right here as Fred asked.

Gull’s sketch of a proof is written out in plenty of detail here https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/547039/help-understanding-prof-steve-gulls-explanation-of-bells-theorem. Please, Fred, could you tell me where you first need help understanding this proof.

I don't need help in understanding gibberish. Eq. (2a) is just plain wrong. It's gibberish.
.

[local]

Eq. (2a) is just plain wrong. It's gibberish.

I guess he's trying to say that A() and B() should have the same form. But his way of stating it is indeed gibberish. The functions depend on the LHVs, which he ignores, so the functions cannot be equated like that. Why must we be forced to digest gibberish?

[FrediFizzx]

Eq. (2a) is just plain wrong. It's gibberish.

I guess he's trying to say that A() and B() should have the same form. But his way of stating it is indeed gibberish. The functions depend on the LHVs, which he ignores, so the functions cannot be equated like that. Why must we be forced to digest gibberish?

Not forced at all since I just stopped at eq. (2a). Still waiting for Gill's explanation of Gull's original proof. But he probably is having trouble with the gibberish also.
.

[local]

Fred, I made a post at the stackexchange thread pointing out the cluelessness. They're starting to cancel me with downvotes. Was that you, Gill? It doesn't matter that what I say is correct. The guy says the A() and B() functions are the hidden variables. Stupid and pathetic.

[FrediFizzx]

Fred, I made a post at the stackexchange thread pointing out the cluelessness. They're starting to cancel me with downvotes. Was that you, Gill? It doesn't matter that what I say is correct. The guy says the A() and B() functions are the hidden variables. Stupid and pathetic.

I just up voted it.
.

[local]

Thank you. I tried to upvote it but my "reputation" is apparently not good enough. These reputation systems are so stupid and pretensious. Just academic gatekeeping/cancel culture in another guise.

[FrediFizzx]

Thank you. I tried to upvote it but my "reputation" is apparently not good enough. These reputation systems are so stupid and pretensious. Just academic gatekeeping/cancel culture in another guise.

Well, it looks like they just cancelled your answer out anyways. I suspect it should have just been a comment to the only answer on there.
.

[gill1109]

I’m not embarrassed.

Then do it right here as Fred asked.

Gull’s sketch of a proof is written out in plenty of detail here https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/547039/help-understanding-prof-steve-gulls-explanation-of-bells-theorem. Please, Fred, could you tell me where you first need help understanding this proof.

I don't need help in understanding gibberish. Eq. (2a) is just plain wrong. It's gibberish.
.

It’s not wrong. He means, A_n(theta) = B_n(theta) for all theta and for each n. He could have written: A_n = B_n. He writes in common lazy physicist’s notation.

[local]

Well, it looks like they just cancelled your answer out anyways. I suspect it should have just been a comment to the only answer on there.

I can't answer, only comment? Are you kidding? No simp nation here, or am I wrong? Unreal.

[gill1109]

Fred, I made a post at the stackexchange thread pointing out the cluelessness. They're starting to cancel me with downvotes. Was that you, Gill? It doesn't matter that what I say is correct. The guy says the A() and B() functions are the hidden variables. Stupid and pathetic.

I don’t have an account on that site. One can consider the set of all A_n(theta) and B_n(theta) as the hidden variables. They stand for functions of a hidden variable: namely, A(theta, lambda_n) and B(theta, lambda_n). So they are hidden, too. They stand for the counterfactual outcomes which would have been observed on the nth trial had the setting chosen been theta.

[local]

Three full lines saying nothing. And so boring!

[FrediFizzx]

Three full lines saying nothing. And so boring!

Jeez, just what we needed. Not! More gibberish!
.

[FrediFizzx]

Fred, I made a post at the stackexchange thread pointing out the cluelessness. They're starting to cancel me with downvotes. Was that you, Gill? It doesn't matter that what I say is correct. The guy says the A() and B() functions are the hidden variables. Stupid and pathetic.

I don’t have an account on that site. One can consider the set of all A_n(theta) and B_n(theta) as the hidden variables. They stand for functions of a hidden variable: namely, A(theta, lambda_n) and B(theta, lambda_n). So they are hidden, too. They stand for the counterfactual outcomes which would have been observed on the nth trial had the setting chosen been theta.

Besides this nonsense, there is one theta where eq. (2a) is true. That is when theta = pi. So, this person is doing a switcheroo on Gull setting a = -b instead of a = b. So, now what does that mean for the rest of the so-called "proof"?
.

[gill1109]

Fred, I made a post at the stackexchange thread pointing out the cluelessness. They're starting to cancel me with downvotes. Was that you, Gill? It doesn't matter that what I say is correct. The guy says the A() and B() functions are the hidden variables. Stupid and pathetic.

I don’t have an account on that site. One can consider the set of all A_n(theta) and B_n(theta) as the hidden variables. They stand for functions of a hidden variable: namely, A(theta, lambda_n) and B(theta, lambda_n). So they are hidden, too. They stand for the counterfactual outcomes which would have been observed on the nth trial had the setting chosen been theta.

Besides this nonsense, there is one theta where eq. (2a) is true. That is when theta = pi. So, this person is doing a switcheroo on Gull setting a = -b instead of a = b. So, now what does that mean for the rest of the so-called "proof"?
.

The author explains that he is first going to switch Bob’s +1 and -1, because that makes the proof more easy. Then -a.b becomes +a.b. And if the settings are equal, the outcomes must be equal, so the functions A and B have to be the *same* function.

[FrediFizzx]

Fred, I made a post at the stackexchange thread pointing out the cluelessness. They're starting to cancel me with downvotes. Was that you, Gill? It doesn't matter that what I say is correct. The guy says the A() and B() functions are the hidden variables. Stupid and pathetic.

I don’t have an account on that site. One can consider the set of all A_n(theta) and B_n(theta) as the hidden variables. They stand for functions of a hidden variable: namely, A(theta, lambda_n) and B(theta, lambda_n). So they are hidden, too. They stand for the counterfactual outcomes which would have been observed on the nth trial had the setting chosen been theta.

Besides this nonsense, there is one theta where eq. (2a) is true. That is when theta = pi. So, this person is doing a switcheroo on Gull setting a = -b instead of a = b. So, now what does that mean for the rest of the so-called "proof"?
.

The author explains that he is first going to switch Bob’s +1 and -1, because that makes the proof more easy. Then -a.b becomes +a.b. And if the settings are equal, the outcomes must be equal, so the functions A and B have to be the *same* function.

So what? That tells me nothing new about the "proof". Of course when a = -b or when a = b the A and B functions are the same except for a minus sign on one of them in the a = b case.
.

[FrediFizzx]

It looks like eq. (3) is more nonsense. According to eq. (1), the RHS of (3) is 1/2 when a = -b and the LHS is 1. Isn't this the same mistake Bell made? Sure it is!
.

[gill1109]

It looks like eq. (3) is more nonsense. According to eq. (1), the RHS of (3) is 1/2 when a = -b and the LHS is 1. Isn't this the same mistake Bell made? Sure it is!
.

Equation (1) tells us nothing when a = - b. It only tells us interesting things for particular values of a - b.

[Heinera]

It looks like eq. (3) is more nonsense. According to eq. (1), the RHS of (3) is 1/2 when a = -b and the LHS is 1. Isn't this the same mistake Bell made? Sure it is!
.

The LHS does not have to be 1. Check again.

[FrediFizzx]

It looks like eq. (3) is more nonsense. According to eq. (1), the RHS of (3) is 1/2 when a = -b and the LHS is 1. Isn't this the same mistake Bell made? Sure it is!
.

The LHS does not have to be 1. Check again.

Well, that is not helpful. What do you think it is when a = -b? It sure isn't 1/2!
.