Coming Soon!

[gill1109]

Fred breaks a Bell inequality so somewhere he is not satisfying the conditions under which it can be derived! (Unless Bell’s inequality is wrong, of course … which would have hat-eating consequences for me).

Joy already broke Bell's theory years ago so you should have already ate the hat. When are you going to learn? Of course I didn't break the inequality because NOTHING can break it so your locality argument using the inequalities is false.
.

That’s what you and Joy believe but, as far as I know, nobody else. Of course, lots more people believe there is something wrong with Bell’s theorem. It’s conclusions are hard to stomach. But so far, the maths seems pretty unassailable, and the experimental evidence gets stronger by the year.

I’ve told you my conditions for eating my hat. You know what you have to do. So far you’ve not convinced anyone with your simulation. (Joy was convinced already, but by his own theory, so he’s simply not surprised that there are other ways to do it, too).

Keep on trying! Give us a Python or R version so everyone can test your algorithms and play with them! Also people around the world who can’t buy Mathematica, or don’t wish to support Wolfram.

[FrediFizzx]

Fred breaks a Bell inequality so somewhere he is not satisfying the conditions under which it can be derived! (Unless Bell’s inequality is wrong, of course … which would have hat-eating consequences for me).

Joy already broke Bell's theory years ago so you should have already ate the hat. When are you going to learn? Of course I didn't break the inequality because NOTHING can break it so your locality argument using the inequalities is false.
.

That’s what you and Joy believe but, as far as I know, nobody else.

Hmm... seems like Joy has in fact a few published papers so you are back to spewing nonsense again. Not surprised.
.

[gill1109]

Fred breaks a Bell inequality so somewhere he is not satisfying the conditions under which it can be derived! (Unless Bell’s inequality is wrong, of course … which would have hat-eating consequences for me).

Joy already broke Bell's theory years ago so you should have already ate the hat. When are you going to learn? Of course I didn't break the inequality because NOTHING can break it so your locality argument using the inequalities is false.
.

That’s what you and Joy believe but, as far as I know, nobody else.

Hmm... seems like Joy has in fact a few published papers so you are back to spewing nonsense again. Not surprised.
.

One of them has been given an “expression of concern” by the editors. In each case, the editors have invited me to write a “Comment”. Naturally, Joy has the last word with a “Reply”. The thing to watch for now is whether anyone cites Joy’s papers and actually develops his methodology further. So far the only positive citations (in fact - the only citations) have simply been to list him among various authors who think Bell was wrong. The amusing thing is that none of them agree with any of the others, concerning what was wrong. If any of them come up with a “counterexample” … nobody else adopts it.

[Joy Christian]

.
Which "expression of concern"? This one? viewtopic.php?f=6&t=455#p11790
.

[FrediFizzx]

Discussion, comments and criticisms of the new paper at the new locked topic can continue here on this thread. The new topic is for people that read the paper to have access to the files. Thanks.
.

[Justo]

Discussion, comments and criticisms of the new paper at the new locked topic can continue here on this thread. The new topic is for people that read the paper to have access to the files. Thanks.
.

Nice paper. Congratulations!. Since it is based on Joy's Algerabraic Geometric models, and those papers were already published, I think that it would be a good sequel to one of those papers and could be published in the same journal.

I have a question. In equation (1) we have A_2. However, A_2 is defined only for certain values of \theta_k. It seems to me that A_1 and A_2 together define a single function, say A'_2, that is the one that has to be in equation (1) instead of A_2.

[FrediFizzx]

@Justo Thanks but not sure why you think it is based on geometric algebra. It is basic trigonometry with cosines and sines and basic algebra. However, the simulation does also work using geometric algebra. It is mostly based on Michel Fodje's epr-simple. With a twist.

You could re-combine A1 and A2 but then you end up with events in A that don't exactly match B and the other way around. It will give you the wrong result. That is why they were separated in the first place so they could be matched up. There is no problem in A2. However when separated you end up with some of the events in A1 that don't have a partner in B1 because they are in B2.
.

[Justo]

@Justo Thanks but not sure why you think it is based on geometric algebra. It is basic trigonometry with cosines and sines and basic algebra. However, the simulation does also work using geometric algebra.

You could re-combine A1 and A2 but then you end up with events in A that don't exactly match B and the other way around. It will give you the wrong result. That is why they were separated in the first place so they could be matched up.
.

Maybe I just don't understand it. But in equation (1) you define a function A that depends on A_2. Let us assume the argument \theta_k is in the range given by equation (2). What is the value for A_2 that you put in equation (1)?

[FrediFizzx]

@Justo Thanks but not sure why you think it is based on geometric algebra. It is basic trigonometry with cosines and sines and basic algebra. However, the simulation does also work using geometric algebra.

You could re-combine A1 and A2 but then you end up with events in A that don't exactly match B and the other way around. It will give you the wrong result. That is why they were separated in the first place so they could be matched up.
.

Maybe I just don't understand it. But in equation (1) you define a function A that depends on A_2. Let us assume the argument \theta_k is in the range given by equation (2). What is the value for A_2 that you put in equation (1)?

Well, A actually depends on only one of the three functions per event depending on the definitions below eq. (1). Yes, it is a little bit confusing but you should have read the explanation at the end of the paragraph that eq. (1) is in.
.

[gill1109]

@Justo Thanks but not sure why you think it is based on geometric algebra. It is basic trigonometry with cosines and sines and basic algebra. However, the simulation does also work using geometric algebra.

You could re-combine A1 and A2 but then you end up with events in A that don't exactly match B and the other way around. It will give you the wrong result. That is why they were separated in the first place so they could be matched up.
.

Maybe I just don't understand it. But in equation (1) you define a function A that depends on A_2. Let us assume the argument \theta_k is in the range given by equation (2). What is the value for A_2 that you put in equation (1)?

Well, A actually depends on only one of the three functions per event depending on the definitions below eq. (1). Yes, it is a little bit confusing but you should have read the explanation at the end of the paragraph that eq. (1) is in.
.

After the formulas (1) to (7) the text of Fred and Joy’s ResearchGate paper http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047 says “where k_A is … and k_B is ...” and “k_A and k_B must be the same”. But k_A and k_B do not appear in those equations. In fact, they are nowhere defined in the paper. They do not appear anywhere else in the paper. The paper says that the matching parts were suggested by Bill Nelson but no reference is given to his proposal. Please give us a version of the code in R or Python. I think you will need to make your simulation easily reproducible on freely available software in order to get this published.

Perhaps the Mathematica code defines k_A and k_B? Then the Mathematica code needs to be clearly annotated. The mismatch between text and formulas on the one hand, and Mathematica code on the other, is much too big for non Mathematica experts to be able to read the paper.

[Joy Christian]

@Justo Thanks but not sure why you think it is based on geometric algebra. It is basic trigonometry with cosines and sines and basic algebra. However, the simulation does also work using geometric algebra.

You could re-combine A1 and A2 but then you end up with events in A that don't exactly match B and the other way around. It will give you the wrong result. That is why they were separated in the first place so they could be matched up.
.

Maybe I just don't understand it. But in equation (1) you define a function A that depends on A_2. Let us assume the argument \theta_k is in the range given by equation (2). What is the value for A_2 that you put in equation (1)?

Well, A actually depends on only one of the three functions per event depending on the definitions below eq. (1). Yes, it is a little bit confusing but you should have read the explanation at the end of the paragraph that eq. (1) is in.
.

After the formulas (1) to (7) the text of Fred and Joy’s ResearchGate paper http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047 says “where k_A is … and k_B is ...” and “k_A and k_B must be the same”. But k_A and k_B do not appear in those equations. In fact, they are nowhere defined in the paper. They do not appear anywhere else in the paper. The paper says that the matching parts were suggested by Bill Nelson but no reference is given to his proposal. Please give us a version of the code in R or Python. I think you will need to make your simulation easily reproducible on freely available software in order to get this published.

Perhaps the Mathematica code defines k_A and k_B? Then the Mathematica code needs to be clearly annotated. The mismatch between text and formulas on the one hand, and Mathematica code on the other, is much too big for non Mathematica experts to be able to read the paper.

You have become too old for this stuff. Perhaps you should find some less demanding hobby for your retirement.

We can see k_A and k_B in equations (4) and (5) of the paper.

And just below equation (7) we can read "where k_A is the trial number recorded by Alice, k_B is the trial number recorded by Bob, ..."
.

[FrediFizzx]

After the formulas (1) to (7) the text says “where k_A is … and k_B is ...” and “k_A and k_B must be the same”. But k_A and k_B do not appear in those equations. In fact, they are nowhere defined in the paper. The paper says that the matching parts were suggested by Bill Nelson but no reference is given to his proposal. Please give us a version of the code in R or Python. I think you will need to make your simulation easily reproducible on freely available software in order to get this published.

CHSH = 2.78608 We are getting a little bit closer. What about k_A and k_B in eqs. (4) and (5)? Bill Nelson answered my question on how to do it on the Mathematica Community Forum. No reference needed for that. You have the analytical formulas now so you should be able to program it yourself in R. BTW, the model is fully predictable only knowing the 3 angles, a, b and theta and trial numbers. For example, with all the angles at 45 degrees, it is a no-brainer. A = -1 and B = +1.
.

[Justo]

Well, A actually depends on only one of the three functions per event depending on the definitions below eq. (1). Yes, it is a little bit confusing but you should have read the explanation at the end of the paragraph that eq. (1) is in.
.

Yes, the explanation at end of the paragraph is clarifying. Still, in my opinion, for the sake of clarity and logical completeness equations (2) and (3) should say "0 otherwise". Also, equation (6) may be better expressed as A_5=A_2.

[FrediFizzx]

Well, A actually depends on only one of the three functions per event depending on the definitions below eq. (1). Yes, it is a little bit confusing but you should have read the explanation at the end of the paragraph that eq. (1) is in.
.

Yes, the explanation at end of the paragraph is clarifying. Still, in my opinion, for the sake of clarity and logical completeness equations (2) and (3) should say "0 otherwise". Also, equation (6) may be better expressed as A_5=A_2.

Nope, that is not what is going on. There is absolutely no "0 otherwise" and A_5 is not equal to A_2. The bulk of events go through A_1. The rest of the events go through A_2.
.

[Justo]

Nope, that is not what is going on. There is absolutely no "0 otherwise" and A_5 is not equal to A_2. The bulk of events go through A_1. The rest of the events go through A_2.
.

As I understand it, equation (1) should be valid under any condition being the "universal" definition of the function A(a,\theta_k). If that is the case all its terms should have assigned values under any condition. Am I right?

I just trying to help, if I do not understand there is the danger that some reviewers also do not understand.

[FrediFizzx]

Nope, that is not what is going on. There is absolutely no "0 otherwise" and A_5 is not equal to A_2. The bulk of events go through A_1. The rest of the events go through A_2.
.

As I understand it, equation (1) should be valid under any condition being the "universal" definition of the function A(a,\theta_k). If that is the case all its terms should have assigned values under any condition. Am I right?

I just trying to help, if I do not understand there is the danger that some reviewers also do not understand.

Sorry but you are wrong. If I just run 1 event in the simulation here is what you get,

outA1
outA2
{{83, -1, 1, g1, 1}}
{}

For the particular a setting that it chose, it went through outA1. outA2 is just blank. So, in this case there is no value for A_2. Here is one where it went through A_2,

{}
{{247, 1, 1, f1, 1}}

A_1 has no value.
.

[Joy Christian]

Nope, that is not what is going on. There is absolutely no "0 otherwise" and A_5 is not equal to A_2. The bulk of events go through A_1. The rest of the events go through A_2.
.

As I understand it, equation (1) should be valid under any condition being the "universal" definition of the function A(a,\theta_k). If that is the case all its terms should have assigned values under any condition. Am I right?

I just trying to help, if I do not understand there is the danger that some reviewers also do not understand.

Justo, your input is welcome and appreciated.

Note that eq. (1) and (2), together, cover all events, without exception. The logic behind these equations is simple.

Equations (1) + (2) amount to saying (X >= HV) + (X < HV). That covers everything in X.
.

[Justo]

Nope, that is not what is going on. There is absolutely no "0 otherwise" and A_5 is not equal to A_2. The bulk of events go through A_1. The rest of the events go through A_2.
.

As I understand it, equation (1) should be valid under any condition being the "universal" definition of the function A(a,\theta_k). If that is the case all its terms should have assigned values under any condition. Am I right?

I just trying to help, if I do not understand there is the danger that some reviewers also do not understand.

Justo, your input is welcome and appreciated.

Note that eq. (1) and (2), together, cover all events, without exception. The logic behind these equations is simple.

Equations (1) + (2) amount to saying (X >= HV) + (X < HV). That covers everything in X.
.

I am not saying that (1) and (2) together do not cover all events, besides the code may be correct.
What I am trying to point out is that the mathematical definition of equation (1) may need polishing to be logically correct and unambiguous.
Let us say that we have the case

Then according to the definition of the function A(a,\theta_k) in equation (1), what is the value assigned to A_2?

A reader like may me who does not understand the code(or even someone who knows Mathematica), may be interested in understanding only the mathematical model.

[FrediFizzx]

@Justo There is nothing illogical about A_2 having no value if A_1 has a value. But perhaps we can make that more specific in an additional explanation. So, thanks for that.

I should add that if A_2 has no value then either A_4 or A_6 will have a value.
.

[Joy Christian]

@Justo There is nothing illogical about A_2 having no value if A_1 has a value. But perhaps we can make that more specific in an additional explanation. So, thanks for that.

Yes. A1 and A2 are mutually exclusive. If A1 is nonzero, then A2 is zero. And if A2 is nonzero, then A1 is zero.
.