local wrote:With or without help?! Does it really matter, to the extent of needing urgent attention? Gill was engaged in an online discussion during which, as he admits, he modified and improved the Fodje formula. Others made valuable and germane contributions to the discussion. Suddenly, we must accept that Gill is the true and only contributor and that he has been gravely insulted, and how dare you diminish this giant creative leap of genius by suggesting it didn't derive 100% from the awesome mind of Richard Gill? Humbug. As I have said elsewhere, "Hey guys, it's Richard Gill.

"

Hey guys, I think that was the great Thomas Ray!

Whoever you are, "local", could you just accept that

I felt gravely insulted.

Do feelings play a role in science? Well, science is an activity of human beings. I am trying to get a star speaking spot arranged for Joy Christian at the Lorentz Center, where you can see Einstein's signature on the wall - Albert Einstein had a visiting professorship in Leiden. He did actually visit. I hope Joy will too. Jay is desperately mediating, trying to get us on speaking terms again, so that this venture can succeed. Fred has kindly allowed me back on his great forum.

I modified and improved Michel Fodje's formula. My source was Pearle's paper. The discussion here was "germane" (it sowed the seed of my contribution) because it led me to re-read the ancient literature on the detection loophole. I checked the mathematical details in Pearle's splendid paper and fixed some bothersome errors. Till that date, the paper had always been referred to as a *theoretical* work, which derived a bound on the detection rate, which it would be necessary to exceed in order to attain a loophole-free experiment if one used the singlet state and the Bell/Tsirelson optimal measurement (Eberhard showed that a lower detection rate was acceptable if you used a less entangled state and other measurements; his work is related to the famous Lucien Hardy proof of Bell's theorem). Nobody seemed to notice that Pearle's work also contained an explicit model; in fact a whole family of models. To my knowledge, till that time nobody had actually implemented the Pearle model (or even: a Pearle model) in a computer simulation. Philip Pearle was also unaware of any implementation.

A question of historical interest, and I think of greater historical interest, is: what inspired Michel to use the particular detection loophole model which he took? He doesn't say.