Parrott's mathematical nonsense

[FrediFizzx]

I didn't ask for a *dataset* which violates (4). Any nonlocal model can produce that, it's trivial. 16 frequencies was all I asked for. 16 numbers. Still not answered. What 16 frequencies did you use to generate your dataset?

Any local model can also "violate" (4). And it is trivial, 1 + 1 +1 -(-1) = 4. So you agree that (4) is wrong.

[Heinera]

I didn't ask for a *dataset* which violates (4). Any nonlocal model can produce that, it's trivial. 16 frequencies was all I asked for. 16 numbers. Still not answered. What 16 frequencies did you use to generate your dataset?

Any local model can also "violate" (4). And it is trivial, 1 + 1 +1 -(-1) = 4. So you agree that (4) is wrong.

Then provide me with the 16 frequencies that produces a dataset that violates (4), if it's trivial. I think it's the 20'th time I've asked for those numbers, with no answer so far.

[minkwe]

Who said anything about model. I've given you 4 mathematical expressions 2 of which are wrong and 2 of which are correct. You claim (4) is correct, I've given you the data which violate it. You claim (1) can be violated, you haven't provided anything, NADA. No data violating (1), No proof of (4). There are no frequencies in those expressions. Just hard-cold data.

I claim (1) can never be violated, you claim it can so provide the data violating it.
I claim (4) can be violated, you claim it can't I've provided data violating it.

You have provided nothing, just BS. You want to distract by talking about frequencies and models. All you have to do is use whatever frequencies you like, and whatever models you like to generate the data. Just provide the data violating (1), I don't want to hear about frequencies or models. Put up the data, or shut up. BTW you still haven't provided the proof for (4). You have some work to do.

[Heinera]

I claim (4) can be violated, you claim it can't I've provided data violating it.

Of course (4) can be violated, with a non-local model (and obviously in nature).

What I (and Bell, and a whole lot of others) are saying, is that (4) can't be violated in an urn model with 16 slips and 16 frequencies (or to be precise, the epression in (4) will converge to a value between -2 and 2 as you draw more and more slips). It's not more complicated than that. Make whatever you want out of it.

[minkwe]

I claim (4) can be violated, you claim it can't I've provided data violating it.

Of course (4) can be violated, with a non-local model (and obviously in nature).

What I (and Bell, and a whole lot of others) are saying, is that (4) can't be violated in an urn model with 16 slips and 16 frequencies. It's not more complicated than that. Make whatever you want out of it.

If (4) can be violated then it is mathematically wrong. There are 256 frequencies in (4) not 16! So please provide the proof of (4). You keep talking about urn model and expression (4) together. Expression (4) never appears in any paper by Bell. Bell never provided any proof of (4) he proved (1) ONLY. You also claim (1) can be violated by QM or experiments Provide the data.

[Heinera]

I claim (4) can be violated, you claim it can't I've provided data violating it.

Of course (4) can be violated, with a non-local model (and obviously in nature).

What I (and Bell, and a whole lot of others) are saying, is that (4) can't be violated in an urn model with 16 slips and 16 frequencies. It's not more complicated than that. Make whatever you want out of it.

If (4) can be violated then it is mathematically wrong. There are 256 frequencies in (4) not 16! So please provide the proof of (4). You also claim (1) can be violated by QM or experiments Provide the data.

There are only 16 slips in the local urn model. How can they have 256 different frequencies? Do you know what a frequency is?

[minkwe]

I claim (4) can be violated, you claim it can't I've provided data violating it.

Of course (4) can be violated, with a non-local model (and obviously in nature).

What I (and Bell, and a whole lot of others) are saying, is that (4) can't be violated in an urn model with 16 slips and 16 frequencies. It's not more complicated than that. Make whatever you want out of it.

If (4) can be violated then it is mathematically wrong. There are 256 frequencies in (4) not 16! So please provide the proof of (4). You also claim (1) can be violated by QM or experiments Provide the data.

There are only 16 slips in the local urn model. How can they have 256 different frequencies? Do you know what a frequency is?

Who cares about how many slips exist in an urn model. You are the one bring up an urn model in discussing expression (4). There are 256 frequencies in expression (4) not 16, so I don't know why you think expression (4) has anything to do with your toy urn model. Expression (1) however, has 16 frequencies and that is the only expression that applies to your urn model.

BTW there is no such thing as a local or nonlocal dataset, all we have is a dataset, numbers in a spreadsheet. The mathematical expressions (1) to (4) don't give a rats behind where the number come from.

[Heinera]

Who cares about how many slips exist in an urn model. You are the one bring up an urn model in discussing expression (4). There are 256 frequencies in expression (4) not 16, so I don't know why you think expression (4) has anything to do with your toy urn model. Expression (1) however, has 16 frequencies and that is the only expression that applies to your urn model.

The modern interpretation of Bell's theorem is the 16 slip urn model. If you want do discuss something else, you are free to do that, but then it's not about Bell's theorem.

For a 16 slip urn model, there can't be 256 frequencies. That's obvious.

If you want to discuss a non-local model with 256 frequencies (thus 256 slips), it has nothing to do with Bell's theorem.

[minkwe]

The modern interpretation of Bell's theorem is the 16 slip urn model.

And the modern interpretation of Bell's theorem is about expression (1) not expression (4). Bell's theorem is the claim that expression (2) amounts to a violation of expression (1). Get a clue already.

If you want do discuss something else, you are free to do that, but then it's not about Bell's theorem.

Huh? You are the one who did a switchero earlier:

It is buffoonery to keep asking for evidence violating expression (1) as you keep repeating. Nobody here disputes the validity of expressions (1) and (2).

You misunderstand, as usual. I ask for evidence that is violating expression (4). But you can't provide that either.

Why were you asking for evidence of violation of (4) when Bell's theorem deals with (1) and (2)? Like I said, you are confused, and haven't learned anything all these years.

Do you still think expression (4) is accurate? If you do, provide the proof. Are you still asking for evidence violating expression (1), if you do then you are woefully confused. Expression(1) can never be violated, none of us has ever claimed as such. Instead it is Bell's followers who repeatedly claim that experiments and QM violate expression (1). So it is up to you to provide the evidence in the form of a dataset, from any source of your choosing, using any mechanism of your choice (local, or non-local, QM or nonQM) demonstrating violation of (1).

If you can't provide those, perhaps it is time to shut-up.

[Joy Christian]

The modern interpretation of Bell's theorem is the 16 slip urn model.

Provide a reference for your claim if you do not wish to be branded a liar --- a published paper by someone respectable (Stephen Parrott or Richard Gill do not count).

***

[Heinera]

I have repeatedly (20 - 30 times?) asked for 16 frequencies that can make a numerical simulation violate epression (4) with the 16 slip urn model. Bell said no such frequencies exist. None has been provided. I rest my case and take the forthcoming week off.

[Joy Christian]

I have repeatedly (20 - 30 times?) asked for 16 frequencies that can make a numerical simulation violate epression (4) with the 16 slip urn model. Bell said no such frequencies exist. None has been provided. I rest my case and take the forthcoming week off.

Bell said no such thing. You are lying. Provide a reference if you are not lying.

***

[FrediFizzx]

I have repeatedly (20 - 30 times?) asked for 16 frequencies that can make a numerical simulation violate epression (4) with the 16 slip urn model. Bell said no such frequencies exist. None has been provided. I rest my case and take the forthcoming week off.

Bell said no such thing. You are lying. Provide a reference if you are not lying.

***

Besides that Jay Yablon and you have already demonstrated that Bell abandoned realism in his formulation.

[minkwe]

I have repeatedly (20 - 30 times?) asked for 16 frequencies that can make a numerical simulation violate epression (4) with the 16 slip urn model. Bell said no such frequencies exist. None has been provided. I rest my case and take the forthcoming week off.

Bell deals with expression (1) not expression (4). Where is the proof of expression (4) you keep talking about, there are 256 frequencies involved in expression (4) not 16 as you keep demanding. You keep asking for a square circle.

[Heinera]

I have repeatedly (20 - 30 times?) asked for 16 frequencies that can make a numerical simulation violate epression (4) with the 16 slip urn model. Bell said no such frequencies exist. None has been provided. I rest my case and take the forthcoming week off.

Bell deals with expression (1) not expression (4). Where is the proof of expression (4) you keep talking about, there are 256 frequencies involved in expression (4) not 16 as you keep demanding. You keep asking for a square circle.

In expression (4), there are no frequencies involved at all, only values +1 or -1. In a 16 slip urn model, the only frequencies involved are the 16 frequencies we can assign to each of the 16 slips. Give me those 16 frequencies that can make me simulate a violation of (4). (Incidentally, that would be request number 31).

[FrediFizzx]

I have repeatedly (20 - 30 times?) asked for 16 frequencies that can make a numerical simulation violate epression (4) with the 16 slip urn model. Bell said no such frequencies exist. None has been provided. I rest my case and take the forthcoming week off.

Bell deals with expression (1) not expression (4). Where is the proof of expression (4) you keep talking about, there are 256 frequencies involved in expression (4) not 16 as you keep demanding. You keep asking for a square circle.

In expression (4), there are no frequencies involved at all, only values +1 or -1. In a 16 slip urn model, the only frequencies involved are the 16 frequencies we can assign to each of the 16 slips. Give me those 16 frequencies that can make me simulate a violation of (4). (Incidentally, that would be request number 31).

Where is your reference that the urn model has anything to do with EPR-Bohm (Bell's model)?
.

[minkwe]

I have repeatedly (20 - 30 times?) asked for 16 frequencies that can make a numerical simulation violate epression (4) with the 16 slip urn model. Bell said no such frequencies exist. None has been provided. I rest my case and take the forthcoming week off.

Bell deals with expression (1) not expression (4). Where is the proof of expression (4) you keep talking about, there are 256 frequencies involved in expression (4) not 16 as you keep demanding. You keep asking for a square circle.

In expression (4), there are no frequencies involved at all, only values +1 or -1. In a 16 slip urn model, the only frequencies involved are the 16 frequencies we can assign to each of the 16 slips. Give me those 16 frequencies that can make me simulate a violation of (4). (Incidentally, that would be request number 31).

There are 8 numbers in expression (4) each of which can have 2 values (+1 or -1). Thus there are 2^8 possible distinct combinations of numbers, each of which can have its own frequency of occurrence. That gives you 256 frequencies.

In expression (1) there are 4 numbers each of which can have 2 values, thus 2^4 possible distinct combinations, hence 16 frequencies. You don't know what you are talking about, just spreading BS.

[FrediFizzx]

I have repeatedly (20 - 30 times?) asked for 16 frequencies that can make a numerical simulation violate epression (4) with the 16 slip urn model. Bell said no such frequencies exist. None has been provided. I rest my case and take the forthcoming week off.

Bell deals with expression (1) not expression (4). Where is the proof of expression (4) you keep talking about, there are 256 frequencies involved in expression (4) not 16 as you keep demanding. You keep asking for a square circle.

In expression (4), there are no frequencies involved at all, only values +1 or -1. In a 16 slip urn model, the only frequencies involved are the 16 frequencies we can assign to each of the 16 slips. Give me those 16 frequencies that can make me simulate a violation of (4). (Incidentally, that would be request number 31).

There are 8 numbers in expression (4) each of which can have 2 values (+1 or -1). Thus there are 2^8 possible distinct combinations of numbers, each of which can have its own frequency of occurrence. That gives you 256 frequencies.

In expression (1) there are 4 numbers each of which can have 2 values, thus 2^4 possible distinct combinations, hence 16 frequencies. You don't know what you are talking about, just spreading BS.

Well now it is easy to understand why Bell's theory has stood for so long. There is just an incredible amount of people I guess that can't do some basic math and don't see the "trickery" involved.

For the time, nothing can violate any of the Bell inequalities!!!!!
.

[FrediFizzx]

Is there anyone following this discussion who is *not* affiliated with SciPhysicsFoundations and who thinks that the above is a correct analysis? If so, I will explain what is wrong with it. If not, I won’t bother. This discussion has become tedious and probably fruitless. The same arguments are repeated and refuted over and over.

In response to Michel's argument. LOL! Michel brings in a new argument to the discussion and Parrott thinks it is not new. Folks, this is a typical Bell fanatic response when cornered. So far no refutation of it on RW. Heine tried to refute it so give him credit for that. But the math does not lie. It is impossible to refute.
.

[Joy Christian]

LOL! Michel brings in a new argument to the discussion and Parrott thinks it is not new. Folks, this is a typical Bell fanatic response when cornered. So far no refutation of it on RW. Heine tried to refute it so give him credit for that. But the math does not lie. It is impossible to refute.
.

Gill's usual response to Michel's argument is that it is valid only for "sample means", and can be overcome for "population means" by using the law of large numbers.

But that statistical trick is equivalent to using integrations instead of discrete sums as I have done in my recent posts; or, as Michel puts it, by dropping all subscripts:

Of course if I drop all the subscripts, you might think I was not making any sense. But that is why Joy’s argument is so powerful — it shows that no experiment can ever measure

⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A₁B’₁⟩ – ⟨A’₁B’₁⟩

Because it amounts to simultaneously performing mutually exclusive experiments since the derivation of expression (1), which is absolutely correct by the way, involves terms of the form

⟨A₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A’₁B₁⟩ + ⟨A₁B’₁⟩ – ⟨A’₁B’₁⟩ = ⟨B₁(A₁ + A’₁)⟩ + ⟨B’₁(A₁ – A’₁)⟩

Which makes it absolutely clear that it involves simultaneously performing of mutually exclusive experiments, even after dropping the subscripts.

***