Coming Soon!

[jreed]

Second try with posting cloud file:

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/optimizedVersion.nb

Seems to work now. If you examine this notebook, you'll see that I did one million trials. This took a few minutes. The results are identical to Fred's version of the notebook. What I did was carefully go through the steps, keeping and simplifying only the ones that actually do the work. They are very simple, two Do loops, one for Alice and one for Bob. Also note that changes in, for example, Alice's detector values are due to Bob's failed trials. Clearly a non-local operation. I won't do this for the quaternion version, since the logic is the same.

[FrediFizzx]

Second try with posting cloud file:

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/optimizedVersion.nb

Seems to work now. If you examine this notebook, you'll see that I did one million trials. This took a few minutes. The results are identical to Fred's version of the notebook. What I did was carefully go through the steps, keeping and simplifying only the ones that actually do the work. They are very simple, two Do loops, one for Alice and one for Bob. Also note that changes in, for example, Alice's detector values are due to Bob's failed trials. Clearly a non-local operation. I won't do this for the quaternion version, since the logic is the same.

Thanks but sorry John, as we told you before, it is a non-local strawman. Where, by your standards, our simulation is 99.998 percent local. By our standards with the quaternion sign flips, our simulation is 100 percent local. I already have a better non-local strawman with 10 million trials. f1,g1,f2, and g2 are there for one purpose only. To separate into A1, A2 and B1, B2. A1 is all the events greater than the HV and A2 are all the events less than the HV. Same for Bob. Necessary so you can find the "orphans".

https://www.wolframcloud.com/env/fredif ... ps-non3.nb

I'm going to have to post the plot separately as it doesn't render very well on the cloud.
.

[gill1109]

Second try with posting cloud file:

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/ka5qep/Published/optimizedVersion.nb

Seems to work now. If you examine this notebook, you'll see that I did one million trials. This took a few minutes. The results are identical to Fred's version of the notebook. What I did was carefully go through the steps, keeping and simplifying only the ones that actually do the work. They are very simple, two Do loops, one for Alice and one for Bob. Also note that changes in, for example, Alice's detector values are due to Bob's failed trials. Clearly a non-local operation. I won't do this for the quaternion version, since the logic is the same.

Thanks but sorry John, as we told you before, it is a non-local strawman. Where, by your standards, our simulation is 99.998 percent local. By our standards with the quaternion sign flips, our simulation is 100 percent local. I already have a better non-local strawman with 10 million trials. f1,g1,f2, and g2 are there for one purpose only. To separate into A1, A2 and B1, B2. A1 is all the events greater than the HV and A2 are all the events less than the HV. Same for Bob. Necessary so you can find the "orphans".

https://www.wolframcloud.com/env/fredif ... ps-non3.nb

I'm going to have to post the plot separately as it doesn't render very well on the cloud.
.

Good work, guys! I could convert this into R now… Or learn Python and do it in Python.

[FrediFizzx]

Here is my really simple non-local simulation that was the inspiration for the local model. 20 million trials at 1 degree resolution. I adjusted the adjustable parameters a little bit.



Here is a plot of the deviation from -cosine curve.



The mean deviation of the absolute value is 0.0114478

The Cloud,

https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/fredif ... n-forum.nb

The files,

EPRsims/newCS-1-noLoops-non-forum.pdf
EPRsims/newCS-1-noLoops-non-forum.nb

Enjoy!
.

[jreed]

Thanks but sorry John, as we told you before, it is a non-local strawman. Where, by your standards, our simulation is 99.998 percent local. By our standards with the quaternion sign flips, our simulation is 100 percent local. I already have a better non-local strawman with 10 million trials. f1,g1,f2, and g2 are there for one purpose only. To separate into A1, A2 and B1, B2. A1 is all the events greater than the HV and A2 are all the events less than the HV. Same for Bob. Necessary so you can find the "orphans".

https://www.wolframcloud.com/env/fredif ... ps-non3.nb

I'm going to have to post the plot separately as it doesn't render very well on the cloud.
.

What I did was remove all the extraneous code that isn't necessary to compute your final values. What I programmed was your code , it isn't my strawman. It is your non-local code.

[FrediFizzx]

Thanks but sorry John, as we told you before, it is a non-local strawman. Where, by your standards, our simulation is 99.998 percent local. By our standards with the quaternion sign flips, our simulation is 100 percent local. I already have a better non-local strawman with 10 million trials. f1,g1,f2, and g2 are there for one purpose only. To separate into A1, A2 and B1, B2. A1 is all the events greater than the HV and A2 are all the events less than the HV. Same for Bob. Necessary so you can find the "orphans".

https://www.wolframcloud.com/env/fredif ... ps-non3.nb

I'm going to have to post the plot separately as it doesn't render very well on the cloud.
.

What I did was remove all the extraneous code that isn't necessary to compute your final values. What I programmed was your code , it isn't my strawman. It is your non-local code.

LOL! You did successfully destroy what is needed to make it local. Gill tried to prove it was non-local but got bit real bad by the quaternion flips. Even then without the flips it is 99.998 percent local.
.

[gill1109]

Thanks but sorry John, as we told you before, it is a non-local strawman. Where, by your standards, our simulation is 99.998 percent local. By our standards with the quaternion sign flips, our simulation is 100 percent local. I already have a better non-local strawman with 10 million trials. f1,g1,f2, and g2 are there for one purpose only. To separate into A1, A2 and B1, B2. A1 is all the events greater than the HV and A2 are all the events less than the HV. Same for Bob. Necessary so you can find the "orphans".

https://www.wolframcloud.com/env/fredif ... ps-non3.nb

I'm going to have to post the plot separately as it doesn't render very well on the cloud.
.

What I did was remove all the extraneous code that isn't necessary to compute your final values. What I programmed was your code , it isn't my strawman. It is your non-local code.

LOL! You did successfully destroy what is needed to make it local. Gill tried to prove it was non-local but got bit real bad by the quaternion flips. Even then without the flips it is 99.998 percent local.
.

Fred, you are the one who bit themself. But anyway: John’s code gives identical output to yours. So if your code defines a mathematical function by giving an algorithm to evaluate the function, then John’s code defines the same function, but clearly in a more transparent way. This isn’t about local vs. non-local, it’s not about explicitly with versus without quaternions, it’s about moving towards an analytical formula for what your code does. Joy will find that useful. We already know, with regards to the first versions of the pre-publication of Fred and Joy, that code and formulas do not match. You guys are going to have to fix that.

[FrediFizzx]

Thanks but sorry John, as we told you before, it is a non-local strawman. Where, by your standards, our simulation is 99.998 percent local. By our standards with the quaternion sign flips, our simulation is 100 percent local. I already have a better non-local strawman with 10 million trials. f1,g1,f2, and g2 are there for one purpose only. To separate into A1, A2 and B1, B2. A1 is all the events greater than the HV and A2 are all the events less than the HV. Same for Bob. Necessary so you can find the "orphans".

https://www.wolframcloud.com/env/fredif ... ps-non3.nb

I'm going to have to post the plot separately as it doesn't render very well on the cloud.
.

What I did was remove all the extraneous code that isn't necessary to compute your final values. What I programmed was your code , it isn't my strawman. It is your non-local code.

LOL! You did successfully destroy what is needed to make it local. Gill tried to prove it was non-local but got bit real bad by the quaternion flips. Even then without the flips it is 99.998 percent local.
.

Fred, you are the one who bit themself. But anyway: John’s code gives identical output to yours. So if your code defines a mathematical function by giving an algorithm to evaluate the function, then John’s code defines the same function, but clearly in a more transparent way. This isn’t about local vs. non-local, it’s not about explicitly with versus without quaternions, it’s about moving towards an analytical formula for what your code does. Joy will find that useful. We already know, with regards to the first versions of the pre-publication of Fred and Joy, that code and formulas do not match. You guys are going to have to fix that.

Ut Oh, the nonsense machine is back again. And you were doing so good but just couldn't resist. Try again without all the nonsense. It is you last chance.
.

[gill1109]

Another try: suppose we have two Mathematica notebooks which, given the same inputs, always give identical outputs. Then we have two algorithms which compute the same function.

Could be useful, if you want to give an analytical definition of the function. Especially if one of the algorithms seems much simpler than the other.

[FrediFizzx]

Another try: suppose we have two Mathematica notebooks which, given the same inputs, always give identical outputs. Then we have two algorithms which compute the same function.

Could be useful, if you want to give an analytical definition of the function. Especially if one of the algorithms seems much simpler than the other.

Nope! Completely wrong. You just can't help yourself from spewing nonsense. You have the analytical definitions in the paper. Does John's code look anything like that? Hell no! Time to get real, get over it and move on.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Here is a link to the paper again.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/2

Now, tell me if the analytical definitions in that paper follow my code or John's. No nonsense please.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Here is a link to the paper again.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/2

Now, tell me if the analytical definitions in that paper follow my code or John's. No nonsense please.

Same question for you also John.
.

[FrediFizzx]

Then besides that we now have the quaternion flips biting you in the ass. Re[qa**aq] = -1.

In[436]:= qa
Out[436]= Quaternion[0.967625,0.,0.,-0.252394]
In[437]:= aq
Out[437]= Quaternion[-0.967625,0.,0.,-0.252394]
In[438]:= Re[qa**aq]
Out[438]= -1
.

[gill1109]

Another try: suppose we have two Mathematica notebooks which, given the same inputs, always give identical outputs. Then we have two algorithms which compute the same function.

Could be useful, if you want to give an analytical definition of the function. Especially if one of the algorithms seems much simpler than the other.

Nope! Completely wrong. You just can't help yourself from spewing nonsense. You have the analytical definitions in the paper. Does John's code look anything like that? Hell no! Time to get real, get over it and move on.

Fred, you hit the nail on the head! The analytical formulas which *were* in the paper generated correlations which satisfied Bell's inequality. So of course John's code did not look at all like Joy's original formulas.

All I most recently have said was that John's code *does exactly the same* as your code, as anyone can check for themselves.

I don't know about the new formulas in the new version of the paper. I will program them in R, and let you know if the analytical prescription in the latest version of the paper is not clear. It does look a whole lot better now. It looks close to what I have been asking for all the time: pseudo-code, which anyone could use to program your simulation algorithm in any common computer language they like. If people like this work they will rapidly be producing a version in Python. When I have an R version I will do my own tests for locality.

This is a great step forward!

[FrediFizzx]

All I most recently have said was that John's code *does exactly the same* as your code, as anyone can check for themselves.

Still spewing nonsense I see which I snipped out except for this nonsense gem. John's code DOES NOT do exactly the same as my code! He destroyed all the code that makes it local! Time to get real, get over it, and move on!
.

[gill1109]

Here is a link to the paper again.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28311.91047/2

Now, tell me if the analytical definitions in that paper follow my code or John's. No nonsense please.

I am now studying the analytical definitions in that paper. Formula (16) only defines A_3 in the situation when k = k_A != k_B. In that situation it is equal to A_1. Formula (19) defines A_6 in terms of A_1, A_3 and A_5.

The subsequent text says that k = k_A = k_B. That means that it should not be necessary to define A_3 at all. But that gives a problem for A_6, and that gives a problem for A itself, formula (13).

You write in formula (13) that A_4 + A_6 can be thought of as (?) "corrected A_1".

You also write that only one of A_4, A_6 and A_2 is nonzero. Do you really mean that only one of A_4, A_6 and A_2 is actually defined? As far as I can see, A_6 is never defined, so we might as well define A as A_4 or A_2, depending on which got defined. This makes A_4 equal to A_1 or A_2, since one of these is always defined.

In that case, your code could be a whole lot shorter too. And I don't think it would give the results which you claim...

BTW, I notice in your Mathematica code that you create vectors and matrices in advance and fill them in advance with 0's. Maybe you are incorporating this coding convention into your maths formulas. See the recent discussion with Michel about what you should do when a function is not defined in some circumstances. Many different ways to take account of that issue... He suggests that you redefine the domain. I suggest you redefine the range. Whatever you do, you should make clear what you are doing and make sure it makes sense in your problem, whether that is a computer simulation, some pure maths, or some mathematical physics.

[FrediFizzx]

@gill1109 A6 is perfectly well defined even more so now with the quaternion version. And there is a difference between 0 and "no result". Try again.
.

[FrediFizzx]

... BTW, I notice in your Mathematica code that you create vectors and matrices in advance and fill them in advance with 0's. Maybe you are incorporating this coding convention into your maths formulas. See the recent discussion with Michel about what you should do when a function is not defined in some circumstances. Many different ways to take account of that issue... He suggests that you redefine the domain. I suggest you redefine the range. Whatever you do, you should make clear what you are doing and make sure it makes sense in your problem, whether that is a computer simulation, some pure maths, or some mathematical physics.

You do the same thing in R. Those are storage bins to hold the later data so it can be recalled. Very necessary when you have independent Do-loops.
.

[jreed]

All I most recently have said was that John's code *does exactly the same* as your code, as anyone can check for themselves.

Still spewing nonsense I see which I snipped out except for this nonsense gem. John's code DOES NOT do exactly the same as my code! He destroyed all the code that makes it local! Time to get real, get over it, and move on!
.

By adding this extra magic spaghetti code to the calculation we can change it from non-local to local. SHAZAM . Now we're in Fred World.

[Joy Christian]

All I most recently have said was that John's code *does exactly the same* as your code, as anyone can check for themselves.

Still spewing nonsense I see which I snipped out except for this nonsense gem. John's code DOES NOT do exactly the same as my code! He destroyed all the code that makes it local! Time to get real, get over it, and move on!
.

By adding this extra magic spaghetti code to the calculation we can change it from non-local to local. SHAZAM . Now we're in Fred World.

Sorry, John. You are mistaken. You have aligned yourself with the dark force for too long to recognize that your argument is based on a strawman. That makes it completely fallacious.
.