by Joy Christian » Thu Oct 19, 2023 9:14 pm
FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 1:50 pm
I'm having trouble with your eq. (56). You have an average of the product of two discontinuous functions on the first line and two continuous functions on the second line. That has to be an impossible equality. I suspect Bell tripped you up again.
My eq. (56) is correct. The sign functions are
continuous functions of the continuous variable
s^i, which is integrated over to produce the second line of eq. (56). Only the values, +/-1, taken by the sign functions for a given occurrence of the continuous variable
s^i are discrete. That does not make the sign functions themselves "discontinuous."
There are no mathematical mistakes in any of Bell's papers. His only mistake is a deeply conceptual mistake:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.09519
.
[quote=FrediFizzx post_id=1003 time=1697748652 user_id=58]
[quote="Joy Christian" post_id=993 time=1696541132 user_id=63]
Yes, that is correct. The paper is under review at a prominent journal. But its preprint is available on arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.10288
.
[/quote]
I'm having trouble with your eq. (56). You have an average of the product of two discontinuous functions on the first line and two continuous functions on the second line. That has to be an impossible equality. I suspect Bell tripped you up again.
[/quote]
My eq. (56) is correct. The sign functions are [i][b]continuous[/b][/i] functions of the continuous variable [b]s[/b]^i, which is integrated over to produce the second line of eq. (56). Only the values, +/-1, taken by the sign functions for a given occurrence of the continuous variable [b]s[/b]^i are discrete. That does not make the sign functions themselves "discontinuous."
There are no mathematical mistakes in any of Bell's papers. His only mistake is a deeply conceptual mistake: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.09519
.
