Sci.Physics.Foundations

Denote the correlation by "r". This tells us (P(++) + P(--)) - (P(+-) + P(--)) = r. But (P(++) + P(--)) + (P(+-) + P(--)) = 1. So (add the equations, divide by 2) P(++) + P(--) = (1 + r) / 2. By symmetry (can also be proven by similar linear algebra), P(++) = P(--). Therefore we find all ...

And... I'm no expert in the foundations of QM, but I also instantly understood what Joy was talking about. Especially since it is used twice in the simulation.
.

Now it makes sense to me. Since I was not the only one who did not understand I think the problem was the way he explained it. Justo, apparently you need to actually read and understand more of what I say. It was fully explained before this new forum was started. Please pay closer attention if you ...

You can discuss anything here. I'm not going to moderate it or monitor it much so use the report a post button if you wish to draw my attention to something not appropriate.

I suppose that equation (1) is not "Bell's model" in general. Is one possible "local realistic" model. Right? There you go with that "in general" nonsense again. Eq. (1) IS Bell's model period!! And................. we actually use it in our soon to be extremely famous...

By the way, I have to apologise: your claim: “I'm claiming in the context of a simulation where x = RandomReal[0, 2 pi] is dependent on the number of trials, that if < f > = < g >, then f = g” is absolutely correct. (A mathematician might add the phrase “with probability one” to the condition "...

In general, there is no point contributing on a forum that is hidden from the public. It's fine to require authentication to participate but it makes no sense to hide the content from the public like the latter. Well.......... For the Bell fanatics there is a lot they would like to keep hidden from...

In general, there is no point contributing on a forum that is hidden from the public. It's fine to require authentication to participate but it makes no sense to hide the content from the public like the latter. :D Yep, it is definitely pretty silly to have a private forum of some kind unless you a...

OK, you showed me the 361 pairs of numbers which I would denote by ( N(++ | d ), d ) where d = a - b runs from 1 to 361. Add the counts altogether and I would denote that by N(++). It is not RUNS 1 to 361. Those are the (a-b) angles at one degree increments (IOW, bins). The run was still a million ...

@gill1109 I really don't understand this yet. P(++ | a,b) = N(++ | a, b) / N(a, b) What is N(++ | a, b) exactly? N(++ | a, b) would be the number of trials in which Alice sees outcome "+" and Bob sees outcome "+", when Alice has setting "a" and Bob has setting "b&...

@gill1109 I really don't understand this yet.

P(++ | a,b) = N(++ | a, b) / N(a, b)

What is N(++ | a, b) exactly?
.

Ok, back to the original question. I think I need to do some slight fixin' on it. This expression seems a bit odd to me. https://sciphysicsfoundations.com/download/outcome-pairs2.png In order to get the probabilities for each of the four outcome pairs say in a large simulation, they first have to be...