Fred,
Thanks for the reference to
http://retractionwatch.com/2016/09/30/p ... nt-1137639 .
I had been looking in PubPeer sites and not found Richard Gill's latest comment there.
When I previously tried to load Retraction Watch, my computer failed to obtain the site. The site may have been overloaded at that time (!?) which is why I did not find the comment previously.
Richard Gill's latest post at Retraction Watch, on 12 October 12 2016 at 8:01 am, might be paraphrased as 'the correlation clearly equals minus one' which is very similar to Item RGC1 on my list of "Richard Gill's confusions". However, the equation now referred to is not identical to that in Item RGC1 as the former includes the expression ^k throughout. So I will call the new confusion RGC7.
Item RGC7 (not using an exact quote):
From definitions (54) and (55), it follows that A(a, lambda^k) = lambda^k and B(b, lambda^k) = – lambda^k.
The measurement outcomes are equal and opposite (and do not depend on the measurement settings).
Why compute the correlation by a roundabout route if it is now already clear that it equals minus one?
Jay has subsequently posted what seems to me to be an excellent clarification of that confusion on Retraction Watch on October 12, 2016 at 10:09 pm.
However, Fred, you appear in your post of October 13, 2016 at 12:01 am at Retraction Watch to have taken (mild?) offence at Jay's use of the words "fancy dressing"? When I read Jay's post I simply took it all as positive for Joy's paper. Perhaps if Jay had used the words: "is just a creative and original way of transforming +lambda" or the like instead of "is just a fancy way of dressing up the +lambda" the words might not have grated on you? I agree that there could be negative implications of both "fancy" [implying unnecessarily complicated?] and "dressing" [implying not the real essence?], but how you interpret that maybe depends on your personality. As I say, I took it as a positive comment for the paper.
BTW did you read Jay's own recent paper at
http://vixra.org/pdf/1609.0387v1.pdf , section 10 page 33 where Jay writes: " ... the number “1” constructed in ... is useful in a variety of circumstances ...". To be fair Jay did not say that his own usage was "fancy dressing".
Further. you have later commented at
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=271&start=20#p6857"It is all settled now. Gill is completely shot down once again."
You may be privy to personal posts that I have not seen, but afaik we are waiting for an update by Jay, or Richard, on how clarification of that particular point is progressing?