GAViewer Simulation No Hidden Variable

[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.

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

It could be anything between 0 and 1. E.g, 1/2.

[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!
.

It could be anything between 0 and 1. E.g, 1/2.

Nope! Not when a = -b. In their notation if A(a) = 1 then A(-a) = 0 and when A(a) = 0 then A(-a) = 1. So, it is going to be zero on the LHS. It's pure nonsense!
.

[Heinera]

Nope! Not when a = -b. In their notation if A(a) = 1 then A(-a) = 0 and when A(a) = 0 then A(-a) = 1. So, it is going to be zero on the LHS. It's pure nonsense!
.

No, so far nothing is said about the relation between A(a) and A(-a). But for a = -b, the RHS is also 0, so the statement is not nonsense, but perfectly consistent.

[FrediFizzx]

Nope! Not when a = -b. In their notation if A(a) = 1 then A(-a) = 0 and when A(a) = 0 then A(-a) = 1. So, it is going to be zero on the LHS. It's pure nonsense!
.

No, so far nothing is said about the relation between A(a) and A(-a).

Rubbish! Eq. (2a) says it. The only time that equation is true is when a = -b. Therefore, the product in the summation is always going to be zero. They made the nonsensical substitution of which only applies when a = -b.
.

[Heinera]

And for a = -b the LHS is also zero. So what are you complaining about?

[FrediFizzx]

And for a = -b the LHS is also zero. So what are you complaining about?

Right, the LHS is zero and the RHS is 1/2 according to eq. (1). Eq. (3) is garbage.
.

[Heinera]

And for a = -b the LHS is also zero. So what are you complaining about?

Right, the LHS is zero and the RHS is 1/2 according to eq. (1). Eq. (3) is garbage.
.

Sorry, typo on my part. The RHS is also zero, not 1/2 as you claim. If a = -b the difference is pi, and cos(pi) is -1.

[FrediFizzx]

And for a = -b the LHS is also zero. So what are you complaining about?

Right, the LHS is zero and the RHS is 1/2 according to eq. (1). Eq. (3) is garbage.
.

Sorry, typo on my part. The RHS is also zero, not 1/2 as you claim. If a = -b the difference is pi, and cos(pi) is -1.

Oops, my calculator said it was +1 but now I see what I did wrong on the calculator. So eq. (3) is OK when a = -b.
.

[FrediFizzx]

...
Sorry, typo on my part. The RHS is also zero, not 1/2 as you claim. If a = -b the difference is pi, and cos(pi) is -1.

Oops, my calculator said it was +1 but now I see what I did wrong on the calculator. So eq. (3) is OK when a = -b.
.

Well, maybe this is still messed up on the RHS. If you make substitutions for a = -b in eq. (1), you get,



So, that is what the RHS of eq. (3) could be. What the heck is one supposed to do with that? The plot of that equation with beta 0 to 2pi is,


.

[FrediFizzx]

Ok, so here is eq. (3). You can right click on the equation in stackexchange to get the tex. That's neat.



Now, we make the substitutions for when and include the RHS of eq. (1),



So, now the LHS is zero and the RHS is varying from 0 to 1/2. Sure seems like nonsense to me. And when alpha is pi, it is 1/2 on the RHS like I said before.
.

[gill1109]

Ok, so here is eq. (3). You can right click on the equation in stackexchange to get the tex. That's neat.



Now, we make the substitutions for when and include the RHS of eq. (1),



So, now the LHS is zero and the RHS is varying from 0 to 1/2. Sure seems like nonsense to me. And when alpha is pi, it is 1/2 on the RHS like I said before.
.

Indeed that is really neat!

Why is the LHS zero? Remember, this guy on Stackexchange also makes A and B zero-one valued and looks at the expectation of the product of the outcomes. When alpha is pi, the results are equal: equal to +1 with probability half, equal to 0 with probability half. So the expectation of the product is 1/2.

[FrediFizzx]

...
Why is the LHS zero? ...

Look back in the thread for why the LHS is zero. Heine agrees with it.
.

[gill1109]

...
Why is the LHS zero? ...

Look back in the thread for why the LHS is zero. Heine agrees with it.
.

I guess I should write out the stackexchange proof at more length in mathematician’s notation ... [of course, it could indeed be that it’s wrong ...]

[FrediFizzx]

...
Why is the LHS zero? ...

Look back in the thread for why the LHS is zero. Heine agrees with it.
.

I guess I should write out the stackexchange proof at more length in mathematician’s notation ... [of course, it could indeed be that it’s wrong ...]

Forget the nonsense on stackexchange and just try to explain Gull's original. Starting at page 3, number (2).
.

[Heinera]

Well, maybe this is still messed up on the RHS. If you make substitutions for a = -b in eq. (1), you get,



So, that is what the RHS of eq. (3) could be. What the heck is one supposed to do with that? The plot of that equation with beta 0 to 2pi is,


.

You are mixing up coordinate systems. When two vectors point in opposite directions, we have a = -b only when we use Cartesian coordinates. In polar coordinates (i.e. angles) we have alpha - beta = pi. In this proof we use polar coordinates, so your substitution of a = -b into cos(alpha - beta) is meaningless.

With opposite angles, the RHS of (3) is always zero.

[FrediFizzx]

...
You are mixing up coordinate systems. ...

Well, that seems very odd. Why would an equation like this have different coordinate systems on each side? To me, that means the equation is probably stupid to start with.
.

[Heinera]

...
You are mixing up coordinate systems. ...

Well, that seems very odd. Why would an equation like this have different coordinate systems on each side? To me, that means the equation is probably stupid to start with.
.

Jeezus. Alpha and beta are angles. When the settings are opposite (differ by pi, or 180 degrees), does this mean that alpha = -beta?

[FrediFizzx]

...
You are mixing up coordinate systems. ...

Well, that seems very odd. Why would an equation like this have different coordinate systems on each side? To me, that means the equation is probably stupid to start with.
.

Jeezus. Alpha and beta are angles. When the settings are opposite (differ by pi, or 180 degrees), does this mean that alpha = -beta?

Whatever. Let's say you are right but forget this nonsense on stackexchange. On page 2 of Gull's original so-called "proof" he says, "Your task is to ensure:



over long term performance." Well, the only time you get ++ or -- is when . Of course that means that and the RHS is zero. Well, my GAViewer program ENSURES that is true for EVERY single trial. So, the rest of Gull's "proof" must be nonsense. I'm still waiting for Gill to explain why that is not the case.
.

[gill1109]

...
You are mixing up coordinate systems. ...

Well, that seems very odd. Why would an equation like this have different coordinate systems on each side? To me, that means the equation is probably stupid to start with.
.

Jeezus. Alpha and beta are angles. When the settings are opposite (differ by pi, or 180 degrees), does this mean that alpha = -beta?

Whatever. Let's say you are right but forget this nonsense on stackexchange. On page 2 of Gull's original so-called "proof" he says, "Your task is to ensure:



over long term performance." Well, the only time you get ++ or -- is when . Of course that means that and the RHS is zero. Well, my GAViewer program ENSURES that is true for EVERY single trial. So, the rest of Gull's "proof" must be nonsense. I'm still waiting for Gill to explain why that is not the case.
.

Gull is talking about two completely separate programs. They are each given the same initial “set of outcomes of all to be needed hidden variables”. Then each is given its own stream of settings, and each produces its own stream of outcomes. After that, we look at the statistics of + +, + -, - +, and - - for each theta1, theta2. What GAViewer can do when run once, on one computer, is irrelevant.

[FrediFizzx]

Jeezus. Alpha and beta are angles. When the settings are opposite (differ by pi, or 180 degrees), does this mean that alpha = -beta?

Whatever. Let's say you are right but forget this nonsense on stackexchange. On page 2 of Gull's original so-called "proof" he says, "Your task is to ensure:



over long term performance." Well, the only time you get ++ or -- is when . Of course that means that and the RHS is zero. Well, my GAViewer program ENSURES that is true for EVERY single trial. So, the rest of Gull's "proof" must be nonsense. I'm still waiting for Gill to explain why that is not the case.
.

Gull is talking about two completely separate programs. They are each given the same initial “set of outcomes of all to be needed hidden variables”. Then each is given its own stream of settings, and each produces its own stream of outcomes. After that, we look at the statistics of + +, + -, - +, and - - for each theta1, theta2. What GAViewer can do when run once, on one computer, is irrelevant.

Yep, as expected. More waffling. You obviously don't understand Gull's TASK.
.