The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby gill1109 » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:47 pm

Unfortunately, an attempt to claim the 10 000 Euro prize for a successful attempt before June 11 failed at the adjudication stage. The challenge is still open, but now only 5 000 Euro is on offer.

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=52#p1898

In the light of experience the following clarifications are added.

The number N of directions in the two files is preferably around 10 000. It must not exceed 100 000.

Directions may be represented by polar coordinates (theta, phi) (azimuth, zenith) in degrees or angles; or in Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z) of vectors in R^3. The third Cartesian coordinate z, or the polar coordinate phi, may be omitted. The submitter should make clear what is his or her choice.

In the formulas for the correlations, the same two sets of N directions u_k, v_k, k = 1, ..., N, is used in each separately calculated correlation. The formulas use the representation of directions in R^3 by real vectors in R^3; "dot" is the usual dot product of vectors in R^3, "sign" is the usual sign function; addition, multiplication and division are all by ordinary real number arithmetic.

The challenge is open to all. The number of submissions per person is unlimited, but at most one appeal to adjudication is allowed. Files should be posted on internet and the submission announced on this forum, and to me by email. A computer script which generates the data files with pre-set random seed and two explicit "write" statements is an allowed form of submission, subject to availability on my side of the computer language used. However the two files still need to be posted to internet, to allow easy independent verification.

If adjudication is required, we will together decide on and then approach suitable adjudicators and request their assistance. Their working procedure is up to them e.g. majority vote, chairman decides, or something else. The letter inviting adjudicators to take on this job can be found elsewhere on this forum. On request, I can also post it here again.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:20 am

gill1109 wrote:Unfortunately, an attempt to claim the 10 000 Euro prize for a successful attempt before June 11 failed...

Dear All,

Please do not fall for this fraudulent "challenge."

(1) To being with, I have already defeated the so-called challenge quite decisively. Please see the details here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=64&start=140#p3013.

(2) The rules of the challenge will change as soon as you defeat it. They have changed unaccountably many times already.

(3) Even if you "win" the so-called challenge, you will never see a cent out of Richard Gill's pocket. He has no intention of paying anyone, ever.

(4) For my public statement about how I defeated the challenge you may wish to read the first postscript on this page of my blog.

But of course you are free to ignore the above facts if you are truly desperate to be conned by Richard Gill.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby gill1109 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:27 am

Unfortunately, Weihs, de Raedt and Khrennikov do not agree with Christian. His own technique has been to make submission after submission, each time creatively bending the rules in a different way, which have never changed. They have been clarified and indeed repeatedly endorsed by Christian.

However one thing Christian says is true, at least, in my humble opinion: you will never see a cent out of my pocket. That is because it is my opinion that it is a mathematical fact that a successful submission is impossible. You might just as well try to find two integers p and q such that p divided by q, squared, equals 2.

However Christian has a low opinion of my mathematical skills so if he is right in his opinion, maybe you can succeed in winning my challenge even where he failed.

Moreover, if his experiment is ever performed, and if it agrees with his predictions, then the very data files generated by that experiment could be submitted to this challenge. Moreover, Christian himself would have won our previously cancelled bet about his experiment, so he would actually be in for 5 000 Euro, twice.

My recommendation to all Christian supporters is to go ahead pushing for the experiment to be done.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:36 am

gill1109 wrote:Unfortunately, Weihs, de Raedt and Khrennikov do not agree with Christian.

Mixture of lies and half truths---a true hallmark of Richard Gill.

But hey, I am done with Richard Gill and his frauds. Go for his "challenge" if you want to be conned.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby gill1109 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:49 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Unfortunately, Weihs, de Raedt and Khrennikov do not agree with Christian.

Mixture of lies and half truths---a true hallmark of Richard Gill.

But hey, I am done with Richard Gill and his frauds. Go for his "challenge" if you want to be conned.


So you are not interested in 2 x 5 000 if your experiment gets done and is successful?

By the way, writing words in huge letters, colouring them red, or putting them in capitals, is called "shouting" in polite circles. Calling some objectifiably verifiable statements lies and half truths and calling them the hallmark of a particular person, moreover a colleague on this forum, is an ad hominem argument.

However, it is always interesting to see this kind of degeneration, because they are tell-tale signs of the poverty of the shouter's / personal abuser's arguments.

But anyway, the facts speak for themselves.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:19 am

gill1109 wrote:By the way, writing words in huge letters, colouring them red, or putting them in capitals, is called "shouting" in polite circles. Calling some [dubious and outright deceptive] statements lies and half truths and calling them the hallmark of a particular person, moreover a [participant] on this forum, is an ad hominem argument.

Yes, I know. Tell me something I don't know. FYI: ad hominem arguments are valid and informative form of logical arguments. Calling a liar a liar is not a lie.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby gill1109 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:48 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:By the way, writing words in huge letters, colouring them red, or putting them in capitals, is called "shouting" in polite circles. Calling some [dubious and outright deceptive] statements lies and half truths and calling them the hallmark of a particular person, moreover a [participant] on this forum, is an ad hominem argument.

Yes, I know. Tell me something I don't know. FYI: ad hominem arguments are valid and informative form of logical arguments. Calling a liar a liar is not a lie.

Calling someone a liar is imputing a motive to their telling something which you believe is not true.

Maybe they believe they are telling the truth.

This is an extremely important distinction.

Lying equals telling a falsehood with deliberate intention to deceive.

You may suspect I am a liar, but you can't know it. In any case, it is contrary to the rules of decorum on this forum to directly inform everyone that you believe I'm a liar. This is exactly the kind of behaviour which can get you into trouble. In fact, I was told by the president of Wolfson college to let her know if you did this again.

Similarly you may think that all kinds of famous scientists are morons but it is unwise to call them morons to their name, in public. It temporarily makes you feel good, but it definitely hurts your reputation, even if it actually is true.

Focus on the content, on the message, not on the messenger. And there's no need to keep on repeating what everyone already knows.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:22 am

gill1109 wrote:You may suspect I am a liar, but you can't know it. In any case, it is contrary to the rules of decorum on this forum to directly inform everyone that you believe I'm a liar.

You are a liar and I am calling you a liar. You had a chance to back off and correct your statement. You didn't take that chance because your intention was to deceive.

You made the following statement, did you not (if you have forgotten, just check your posts above)?

gill1109 wrote:Unfortunately, Weihs, de Raedt and Khrennikov do not agree with Christian.

Now provide evidence for your statement that "Khrennikov does not agree with me" and I will apologize to you.

If you cannot provide evidence for your statement, then that will prove to the world that you are a liar. The ball is in your court. Provide the evidence.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby menoma » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:37 am

Richard arguably indulged in a semantic finesse, in a manner once fairly or unfairly called Jesuitical, because "does not agree" might easily be interpreted to mean "disagrees" ... however, that interpretation is by no means mandatory. Apparently Dr. Khrennikov didn't agree nor did he disagree; he simply felt himself unqualified to offer an opinion. The two distinguished physicists who did offer opinions, one pro-local realism, the other pro-entanglement, agree that Dr. Christian's submission failed and that the 10K euros rightfully remain in the pocket of Dr. Gill.

It's hard not to conclude that Dr. Christian has lost another round.
menoma
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:29 am

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:57 am

menoma wrote:Richard arguably indulged in a semantic finesse, in a manner once fairly or unfairly called Jesuitical, because "does not agree" might easily be interpreted to mean "disagrees" ... however, that interpretation is by no means mandatory. Apparently Dr. Khrennikov didn't agree nor did he disagree; he simply felt himself unqualified to offer an opinion. The two distinguished physicists who did offer opinions, one pro-local realism, the other pro-entanglement, agree that Dr. Christian's submission failed and that the 10K euros rightfully remain in the pocket of Dr. Gill.

It's hard not to conclude that Dr. Christian has lost another round.

Utter nonsense.

(1) It is quite clear that Richard Gill lied with intention to deceive.
(2) How on earth do you know anything about what Khrennikov did or did not do, or how he felt about the so-called "challenge", or what his circumstances are?
(3) How do you know the opinions of the other two physicists? How do you know that they agree that "Dr. Christian's submission failed..."? Did they tell you that?

It is quite clear that Richard Gill lied with intention to deceive. Apparently you are quite happy to be decived by him, just as many other Bell-believers are.

It is not wise to indulge in speculations about things you know nothing about.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby menoma » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:21 am

(1) It is quite clear that Richard Gill lied with intention to deceive.


That's your subjective assessment. It may or may not prove intersubjective.

(2) How on earth do you know anything about what Khrennikov did or did not do, or how he felt about the so-called "challenge", or what his circumstances are?


Richard Gill stated on the 10,000 euros thread that Khrennikov in effect was unable to deal with the question. You didn't disagree with that assessment nor that Khrennikov had agreed to be an adjudicator. Do you disagree now?

(3) How do you know the opinions of the other two physicists? How do you know that they agree that "Dr. Christian's submission failed..."? Did they tell you that?


Once again: do you dispute it? (If I subscribed to your aesthetic at its most disturbed I'd put that in bold large-font red letters.)

It is quite clear that Richard Gill lied with intention to deceive. Apparently you are quite happy to be decived by him, just as many other Bell-believers are.


Whatever.

It is not wise to indulge in speculations about things you know nothing about.


Your point being?
menoma
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:29 am

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby gill1109 » Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:55 am

Thanks Menoma for your contributions.

Regarding what actually happened concerning the adjudication: just before the Växjö conference, Khrennikov agreed to be an adjudicator together with Gregor Weihs and Hans de Raedt. There was a brief email exchange concerning what they had to do. Then there was a busy conference week which included a lot of unforeseen problems due to a train strike in Sweden which meant all kinds of changes to invited speakers' travel schedules, hotels, rebookings... and now Andrei has a big head-ache raising the money to pay for the extra costs. That's why he informed us that he had to drop out. We have to respect that.

Gregor and Hans both independently did what they were supposed to do, informed Christian and me, and only after both had done this, were they also informed of what the other had done. They took this approach under their own initiative (as they were indeed free to). Andrei has not, as far as I know, been informed of their findings.

The adjudicators were not given any instructions as to how they were to work together - jointly or independently, with or without a chairman, majority vote or chairman decides, or whatever. What actually happened was that two of them completely independently on one another did what we asked them to do and reported, separately and independently, back to us. The third adjudicator dropped out because of time pressure of other obligations. Both Gregor and Hans told us that they considered that their work was now completed. They wish not to be involved in further discussion. This wish has to be respected, too; and indeed it was part of the request to them: do this, tell us your conclusion, that's it.

What we could do would be to re-recruit a replacement third adjudicator - Michel Fodje perhaps? Or Han Geurdes? Fred Diether III? And ask them to do the same as the other two? Then we could settle the challenge according to majority vote. However since the majority is already clear (rejecting Christian's claim) there seems no point in doing this.

In the meantime, anyone who likes is welcome to analyse Christian's submitted files however they like (at the last moment there were several verions with different values of N) and take another look at the original challenge and the original text of the four page experimental paper (page four is about the experiment) and discuss that here. I am always interested in further discussion about the merits or otherwise of the challenge. Everyone knows that my opinion is that it is unwinnable but who knows, maybe I'm actually as bad at mathematics as Christian suggests, and have overlooked something.

Since I *set* the challenge, I reserve the right to resolve new ambiguities, if any appear, unilaterally. Anyone who thinks I am shifting goal-posts is welcome to say so and to explain why they think that is the case.

I claim not to have told any falsehoods with intention to deceive. My prior opinion of Christian's work is well known. The challenge was both an experiment and a pedagogical exercise designed to enlighten independent onlookers. Personally I am very happy how it has turned out. As a devious Jesuitical Brit I like to use Machiavellian tricks to achieve my aims. For instance, "divide and rule" worked nicely, with Christian and Diether at one point apparently strongly disagreeing how the data from the experiment should be analysed.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jun 20, 2014 2:56 am

The following points are self-evident from the previous comments by me, but let me restate them here for the record:

(1) It is quite clear that earlier Richard Gill deliberately made a false statement with intention to deceive. He unambiguously stated that "Khrennikov does not agree with Christian", which was a lie. A lie which cannot be covered up by even a million words of half truths.

(2) It is also quite clear that, with Khrennikov's withdrawal from participating in the process, the adjudication was never completed: No coram, no judgment.

(3) It is more than clear that the superficial calculations done by Richard Gill, Gregor Weihs, and Hans de Raedt with the data files I submitted are simply incorrect.

I do not mean to imply that they made any silly mistakes in their calculations. Far from it. The calculations are trivial to do. But their results contradict the clear-cut evidence presented in my simulation: http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298. Two of the four correlations they have computed do not lie on the correlation surface generated in the simulation. Thus their calculations have nothing to do with my model or my proposed experiment, or the so-called challenge. The correct calculations of the four correlations can be found at the bottom of my simulation. Note that all four correlations lie on the correlation surface generated at the top of the simulation. Moreover, as Fred has demonstrated so convincingly, feeding the text files of the spin directions back into the simulation reproduces the correlation surface exactly.

For my true opinion of Richard Gill's so-called challenge, I refer you back to my earlier statement: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=66#p3030.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby menoma » Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:08 am

This is how the affair will be presented by Dr. Christian's opponents, and he has few (and it seems always the same) proponents to contradict it:

"Joy Christian voluntarily accepted a proof-of-concept challenge, accompanied by a monetary bet, offered by Richard Gill, to be adjudicated by three independent physicists of unchallenged distinction. One of the physicists was forced to withdraw at the final moment due to an unforeseen emergency situation. The other two adjudicators, however, were in agreement and so the opinion of the third, while certainly of interest, would not have tipped the balance in terms of the challenge-cum-bet.

"The judgment of the two participating adjudicators was that Dr. Christian's submission did not meet the criteria of the challenge -- i.e., Dr. Christian did not put forward an acceptable proof-of-concept. However, Dr. Christian refused to defer to this determination and continued to maintain that he had, in effect, met all agreed-upon conditions and won the bet. An unfriendly observer might offer the opinion that this posture seemed divorced from reality. Dr. Christian moreover called Dr. Gill a liar on several occasions and accused him of deceitful practices. These attacks are on permanent record (magnetic media and DVD). Furthermore the above was merely the latest installment of a long history of arguably unprofessional, often ad hominem attacks -- frequently describable indeed as fulminations -- by Dr. Christian, of which permanent archival records exist. Indeed, many of those attacks are worth reading for their entertainment value if nothing else. And this man continued to ask for circa 200,000 dollars (US) to fund a proposed experiment designed to prove a conjecture for which, as noted, he was unable to provide any proof-of-concept acceptable to his professional peers and on behalf of which he appeared willing to insult and disparage no few of them on a continuing basis. This pattern of behavior was absolutely unprecedented in the annals of science and we can only hope it does not itself become a precedent."
menoma
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:29 am

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby Joy Christian » Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:40 am

Well, the readers have two very simple options:

(1) Fall for the overt demonization attempt above (I have seen far more sophisticated approaches), or

(2) Checkout the actual evidence presented in this simulation themselves: http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298.

It all depends on whether one is interested in science and evidence or dirty propaganda and cheap thrills.

Image
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby menoma » Fri Jun 20, 2014 10:59 am

Well, the readers have two very simple options:

(1) Fall for the overt demonization attempt above (I have seen far more sophisticated approaches), or ...


I don't doubt you've seen far more sophisticated approaches and I'd love to read them if I already haven't. Do you have it in your heart to share?
menoma
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:29 am

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby florence » Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:45 am

in Joy's latest simulation (http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298) because of the way the 'good' vectors are selected, {good <- abs(ua) > p & abs(ub) > p ## Sets the topology to that of S^3} this results in v being different for each pair of a and b values? could someone please clarify, purely from the point of view of the prize challenge, whether that is permissible under the rules?
{if i use the same v each time, the correlations i find are -.7042 (as before), but +.5415, -.5353, -.2200 for the rest, which gives a value of 2.0010 for abs(E_0_45 - E_0_135 + E_90_45 + E_90_135), as might be expected}
florence
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 1:25 am

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Jun 21, 2014 4:20 am

florence wrote:in Joy's latest simulation (http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298) because of the way the 'good' vectors are selected, {good <- abs(ua) > p & abs(ub) > p ## Sets the topology to that of S^3} this results in v being different for each pair of a and b values? could someone please clarify, purely from the point of view of the prize challenge, whether that is permissible under the rules?
{if i use the same v each time, the correlations i find are -.7042 (as before), but +.5415, -.5353, -.2200 for the rest, which gives a value of 2.0010 for abs(E_0_45 - E_0_135 + E_90_45 + E_90_135), as might be expected}

The correct rules of the so-called challenge were discussed here: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=31&p=1651&hilit=replacement#p1651.

As you can see, you must sample without replacement to get the correct results. Otherwise you are doing something that is physically meaningless.

The rules of the fraudulent challenge were laid out here under my strenuous protests.

Nowhere in these fake rules does it say that the same spin vectors v must be used for all direction vectors a and b.

But now that you raise the question, the rules of the fraudulent challenge will change once again, the Nth time, where N is unbounded in all conceivable ways.

PS: The rpubs.com has been down since yesterday. At least I am unable to access it since yesterday.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby gill1109 » Sat Jun 21, 2014 8:30 am

florence wrote:in Joy's latest simulation (http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298) because of the way the 'good' vectors are selected, {good <- abs(ua) > p & abs(ub) > p ## Sets the topology to that of S^3} this results in v being different for each pair of a and b values? could someone please clarify, purely from the point of view of the prize challenge, whether that is permissible under the rules?
{if i use the same v each time, the correlations i find are -.7042 (as before), but +.5415, -.5353, -.2200 for the rest, which gives a value of 2.0010 for abs(E_0_45 - E_0_135 + E_90_45 + E_90_135), as might be expected}

You are right Florence. This indeed results in a different subset of directions being selected for each pair of a and b values. As is necessary in order to get the result with Christian desires! But it is firmly against the rules of the challenge. The challenge is in fact unwinnable - that was the whole point of it, as far as I am concerned. Who is going to spend months trying to win an obviously unwinnable challenge? What do we learn from observing someone trying to do that?

Christian is using Pearle's detection loophole model, which I told him about some months ago; *after* the challenge was formulated, and *long after* he wrote his experimental paper. In fact it cost me a lot of hard work to extract these simple formulas from Pearle's 1970 paper - misprints and old-fashioned unexplained notational conventions make that classic paper very, very hard to read. I think I am the first person who "decoded" it in nearly 45 years.

You will not find any reference at all to these selection tricks in the instructions to the experimenters on page 4 of Christian's so-called experimental paper. The challenge is modelled on the instructions which Christian himself wrote, as to how, after the experiment, they were to process the data which is gathered in the experiment. And for quite a while he tried again and again to win the challenge "according to the rules".
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: The still open 5 000 Euro challenge

Postby Joy Christian » Sat Jun 21, 2014 9:49 am

OK, here we go again:

(1) I have already defeated the so-called challenge: http://rpubs.com/jjc/19298. The Gill challenge is no more. I have defeated it decisively.

(2) My 3-sphere model has nothing whatsoever to do with the detection loophole: See, e.g., http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355 and http://rpubs.com/jjc/16567.

(3) As usual Richard Gill is giving far too much credit to himself. All he did was to make a minute correction to the original distribution function Michel Fodje and I worked out after Chantal Roth finally produced a viable computer simulation of my 3-sphere model. Without the pioneering simulation works of Chantal Roth and Michel Fodje in weeks of close collaborations with me on theoretical issues, and without the intense discussion that success triggered on several blogs among many participants, and without Fred having set up this particular forum to foster further collaboration with all parties involved, Richard Gill would not have been able to make the minute correction he did make to the distribution function used in Michel Fodje's original simulation. So while Richard Gill certainly deserves credit for digging up the correct distribution function from Pearle's classic paper, he is less than charitable, particularly to Michel Fodje. To understand the significance of the pioneering contributions by Chantal Roth and Michel Fodje, please see the appendices of this paper: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/w ... hapter.pdf.

(4) There are very good reasons why Richard Gill continues to misrepresent my theoretical work as well as my experimental paper. He is intellectually incapable of understanding my 3-sphere model. He has spent several years of considerable efforts to understand my work, but to no avail. There are others who do understand my work very well, however, such as Ben and Fred on this forum, not to mention Lucien Hardy, Michel Fodje, Hugh Matlock, Chantal Roth, Tom Ray, and many others.

(5) Anyone who understands my 3-sphere model and reads my experimental paper in its rightful context knows that I have already defeated the Gill challenge.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2370
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Next

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 10 guests

CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library