Support forum for DG Tools

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?

Ya gotta tell about the swindle.

If I tell, two scoops of ice cream?

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.

Really DG? I'm so excited. I can see my name in lights already.


Sherman Peabody

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.

Wait, I thought you were a fictional character too!

That's what I thought, until they wrote the Haldol prescription.

Haldol is not approved for use in older adults with dementia-related psychosis.

Yer pushing yer luck, Shermie. Ya wanna be a moderator, no? Don't crap in your own bed!

Sorry Mr DG. I don't know what I was thinking. Maybe I wasn't.

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.

Golly Mr DG, that's exciting. I'll be over tomorrow for sure. I'm still in the Acknowledgement section, right?

Right.

BTW, how is your campaign proceeding to get Honoré de Balzac signed on here?

DG wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 09, 2021 11:32 pm

BTW, how is your campaign proceeding to get Honoré de Balzac signed on here?

Any day now. After I assured him that we have ample quantities of strong high-quality coffee and sweet ladies here, his resistance is crumbling.

Tingling with anticipation. I can't wait!

Naked hypergamy on display!