gill1109 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:33 am
You are nicely on target, I agree. The next thing I want to see are the errors, blown up by a factor sqrt N.
Here is a perfect simulation of the EPR-B correlations, with setting differences 0, 1, ..., 360 degrees. I use the same number of trials, N, for each angle difference. I did the experiment with N = 1e02, 1e04 and 1e06.
I blew up estimate minus truth by sqrt N. Notice one gets to see what looks like pure noise, roughly of the same size however large N is, but with an amplitude which has a pretty shape. Any statistician can write down the formula for you. I will add that later. It will be fun to see if your "noise" looks like what it ought to look like!
gill1109 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 09, 2021 11:33 am
You are nicely on target, I agree. The next thing I want to see are the errors, blown up by a factor sqrt N.
Here is a perfect simulation of the EPR-B correlations, with setting differences 0, 1, ..., 360 degrees. I use the same number of trials, N, for each angle difference. I did the experiment with N = 1e02, 1e04 and 1e06.
I blew up estimate minus truth by sqrt N. Notice one gets to see what looks like pure noise, roughly of the same size however large N is, but with an amplitude which has a pretty shape. Any statistician can write down the formula for you. I will add that later. It will be fun to see if your "noise" looks like what it ought to look like!
How about this for noise?
Jeez..., It's Gill spewing nonsense noise.
.
I see systematic deviations. You will not get exactly the negative cosine in the limit of ever-increasing sample sizes. Not so surprising.
gill1109 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 11:44 pm ... I see systematic deviations. You will not get exactly the negative cosine in the limit of ever-increasing sample sizes. Not so surprising.
gill1109 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:47 pm
Sure, you can draw graphs in such a way as to *hide* interesting features.
Though it looks like something odd happened around 180 degrees.
To study your noise, plot the difference between target and simulation, multiplied by square root of pointwise sample-size.
Smooth it, for instance with the function “lowess” in R, to look for systematic deviation
Also smooth the absolute value of the noise and compare that to the theoretical standard error
If you are a serious scientist, rewrite and publish your simulation in R, Python or Julia.
LOL! Something odd happened the whole 360 degrees. The plot was upside down compared to the -cosine curve. The crud at 180 degrees is the crossover from acos to -acos. It smooths out with more trials.
Why the freakin' heck would I ever publish in some really geeky code when I have Mathematica which is a premier math program that 10's of thousands of scientists use. Using free code would be a joke to the publishers. Mathematica is even way better than Maple and quite a few others. Ya don't publish papers with junk code. Get freakin' real.
gill1109 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:47 pm
Sure, you can draw graphs in such a way as to *hide* interesting features.
Though it looks like something odd happened around 180 degrees.
To study your noise, plot the difference between target and simulation, multiplied by square root of pointwise sample-size.
Smooth it, for instance with the function “lowess” in R, to look for systematic deviation
Also smooth the absolute value of the noise and compare that to the theoretical standard error
If you are a serious scientist, rewrite and publish your simulation in R, Python or Julia.
LOL! Something odd happened the whole 360 degrees. The plot was upside down compared to the -cosine curve. The crud at 180 degrees is the crossover from acos to -acos. It smooths out with more trials.
Why the freakin' heck would I ever publish in some really geeky code when I have Mathematica which is a premier math program that 10's of thousands of scientists use. Using free code would be a joke to the publishers. Mathematica is even way better than Maple and quite a few others. Ya don't publish papers with junk code. Get freakin' real.
The code is thankfully short and transparent so anyone can rewrite it in any sensible computer language. And you'll have an excuse to say that their version is just a strawman. You have your base well covered.
Last edited by FrediFizzx on Sat Nov 13, 2021 6:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:Personal comments deleted
FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sat Nov 13, 2021 4:17 pm
@gill1109 Looks like all your Bell buddies are cowards and don't want to face the fact that they aren't really Bell fanatics any more.
Some of my buddies think that Bell was right and some don’t. Probably none of them see any point in trying to communicate with you and your buddies.
I seem to be the sole exception. I see glimmers of hope. I’m an optimist, and I’m retired, so I have lots of time … for the time being. I constantly learn how to be better at teaching by trying to teach the most unteachable.
FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sat Nov 13, 2021 4:17 pm
@gill1109 Looks like all your Bell buddies are cowards and don't want to face the fact that they aren't really Bell fanatics any more.
Some of my buddies think that Bell was right and some don’t. Probably none of them see any point in trying to communicate with you and your buddies.
I seem to be the sole exception. I see glimmers of hope. I’m an optimist, and I’m retired, so I have lots of time … for the time being. I constantly learn how to be better at teaching by trying to teach the most unteachable.
Well..., I said your "Bell" buddies not all your buddies. Yeah, you're probably right. They don't want to learn what's right and get shot down. Cowards. If you really want to be better at teaching, you really should try a whole lot less nonsense. We gave up on teaching you and your Bell buddies because you all are way past the unteachable stage. More like a self-brainwashed cult that no one could ever get to.
.
Yes, I saw the changes. Yes, the picture shows the negative cosine, exactly (up to numerical or graphical rounding errors). There is *no* statistical error at all. At the heart of the code you take the real part of the quaternion ab or the quaternion ba. In both cases, the result is a.b. You are faithfully following Joy Christian’s 2007 approach together with his later introduced limit operations (taking a limit of a product of two terms as s tends both to a and to b by a careful simplification of the product, and then careful substitutions of two remaining instances of s by a or b). It’s extraordinarily ingenious and it gives the right answer.
gill1109 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 16, 2021 11:04 pm
Yes, I saw the changes. Yes, the picture shows the negative cosine, exactly (up to numerical or graphical rounding errors). There is *no* statistical error at all. At the heart of the code you take the real part of the quaternion ab or the quaternion ba. In both cases, the result is a.b. You are faithfully following Joy Christian’s 2007 approach together with his later introduced limit operations (taking a limit of a product of two terms as s tends both to a and to b by a careful simplification of the product, and then careful substitutions of two remaining instances of s by a or b). It’s extraordinarily ingenious and it gives the right answer.
Nope! That is not the 2 big changes. What you are describing has been there for a while now. I will give a clue. They are before the product calculation.
.
You’re right. I looked again and saw yet more changes, both early and late in the code. You changed your three parameters and you now have an even more complicated model. At the end, you show the statistical deviations from the new simulated model. It clearly shows small systematic deviations from the negative cosine.
gill1109 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:51 am
You’re right. I looked again and saw yet more changes, both early and late in the code. You changed your three parameters and you now have an even more complicated model. At the end, you show the statistical deviations from the new simulated model. It clearly shows small systematic deviations from the negative cosine.
gill1109 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:51 am
You’re right. I looked again and saw yet more changes, both early and late in the code. You changed your three parameters and you now have an even more complicated model. At the end, you show the statistical deviations from the new simulated model. It clearly shows small systematic deviations from the negative cosine.
gill1109 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:51 am
You’re right. I looked again and saw yet more changes, both early and late in the code. You changed your three parameters and you now have an even more complicated model. At the end, you show the statistical deviations from the new simulated model. It clearly shows small systematic deviations from the negative cosine.
Nope!
I give up, Fred.
Ah, don't give up yet. Another clue. Two worthless procedures that were in the code that I corrected.
.
Ah, don't give up yet. Another clue. Two worthless procedures that were in the code that I corrected.
Too bad John copped out on us. I'm a little surprised that he didn't say anything about it before. Well..., he always seemed to be a little grumpy to me. But I learned a lot from John. R.I.P.
.
gill1109 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:12 am
I give up, Fred.
Ah, don't give up yet. Another clue. Two worthless procedures that were in the code that I corrected.
Too bad John copped out on us. I'm a little surprised that he didn't say anything about it before. Well..., he always seemed to be a little grumpy to me. But I learned a lot from John. R.I.P.
I don’t understand the theta1 and theta2, lambda1 and lambda2. It’s all got more complicated, not less.
I am still yearning for a version written in a regular programming language.
We gave up on teaching you and your Bell buddies because you all are way past the unteachable stage. More like a self-brainwashed cult that no one could ever get to.
