Christensen et al revisited
Christensen et al revisited
Hey Albert, can I get your opinion on something?
I know that DG criticized the Christensen et al experiment. He showed that full counting and windowed counting both eliminate the CH inequality violation compared to the fixed slots counting used by Christensen et al. He suggested that the presence of extra events in the slots could account for the violation. However, DG never produced a simulation model showing this effect. I tried very hard to produce such a model but was unsuccessful and, indeed, in retrospect it is easy to show theoretically that the fixed slots method is fine and successfully excludes the coincidence window "loophole". Extra events cannot bias toward violation. So why does the Christensen et al analysis show a violation? Guys, I have found an outright swindle in the analysis. It is an unjustified adjustment that converts non-violating statistics to violating ones. That leads me to agree with DG that when properly analyzed the Christensen et al experiment supports locality. Our difference is in the nature of the impropriety of the Christensen et al analysis.
Am I making sense?
I know that DG criticized the Christensen et al experiment. He showed that full counting and windowed counting both eliminate the CH inequality violation compared to the fixed slots counting used by Christensen et al. He suggested that the presence of extra events in the slots could account for the violation. However, DG never produced a simulation model showing this effect. I tried very hard to produce such a model but was unsuccessful and, indeed, in retrospect it is easy to show theoretically that the fixed slots method is fine and successfully excludes the coincidence window "loophole". Extra events cannot bias toward violation. So why does the Christensen et al analysis show a violation? Guys, I have found an outright swindle in the analysis. It is an unjustified adjustment that converts non-violating statistics to violating ones. That leads me to agree with DG that when properly analyzed the Christensen et al experiment supports locality. Our difference is in the nature of the impropriety of the Christensen et al analysis.
Am I making sense?
Christensen et al revisited
Ya gotta tell about the swindle.
Christensen et al revisited
If I tell, two scoops of ice cream?
Christensen et al revisited
Sherman, have you been poking through my notes and computer files again? I discovered the swindle 5 years ago, after my paper on Christensen et al was published. I've been meaning to write that up for publication but never got motivated enough. But now that you claim to have a proof that fixed-slot counting is just fine and dandy, let's write a paper together covering both those things.
Christensen et al revisited
Really DG? I'm so excited. I can see my name in lights already.
Sherman Peabody
Sherman Peabody
Christensen et al revisited
Sherman, sorry to say that academic journals seriously frown upon fictional authors, and you are a fictional character. However, I can give you a prominent mention in the Acknowledgements section. Hoping that will be good for you.
Christensen et al revisited
Wait, I thought you were a fictional character too!
Christensen et al revisited
That's what I thought, until they wrote the Haldol prescription.
Christensen et al revisited
Haldol is not approved for use in older adults with dementia-related psychosis.
- Bullwinkle
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2019 6:37 pm
Christensen et al revisited
Yer pushing yer luck, Shermie. Ya wanna be a moderator, no? Don't crap in your own bed!
Christensen et al revisited
Sorry Mr DG. I don't know what I was thinking. Maybe I wasn't.
Christensen et al revisited
Apology accepted. Thank you.
Sherman, I've been doing a lot of new work on the Christensen et al experiment. The abs 'swindle' in the Christensen analysis is not the actual cause of the violation. In fact, the Christensen analysis producing a CH violation is legit, albeit unnecessarily abstruse. The problem is not in the analysis but in the data itself. It shows a signature of what is needed to artifactually violate the CH inequality via a mechanism that I have recently discovered and simulated. No, it's not a no-signaling violation. Stop by my house tomorrow afternoon and I'll explain it in detail. I've already started the paper. Don't want to do a spoiler here.
Sherman, I've been doing a lot of new work on the Christensen et al experiment. The abs 'swindle' in the Christensen analysis is not the actual cause of the violation. In fact, the Christensen analysis producing a CH violation is legit, albeit unnecessarily abstruse. The problem is not in the analysis but in the data itself. It shows a signature of what is needed to artifactually violate the CH inequality via a mechanism that I have recently discovered and simulated. No, it's not a no-signaling violation. Stop by my house tomorrow afternoon and I'll explain it in detail. I've already started the paper. Don't want to do a spoiler here.
Christensen et al revisited
Golly Mr DG, that's exciting. I'll be over tomorrow for sure. I'm still in the Acknowledgement section, right?
Christensen et al revisited
Right.
BTW, how is your campaign proceeding to get Honoré de Balzac signed on here?
BTW, how is your campaign proceeding to get Honoré de Balzac signed on here?
Christensen et al revisited
Tingling with anticipation. I can't wait!
Christensen et al revisited
Naked hypergamy on display!