OK Folks. I've created a new more simple forum at, http://sciphysicsfoundations.com/ I still have some work to do on it but I think it is working well enough to get started with it. You will have to create new user accounts, etc. and wait for me to approve the new accounts. If I don't know who you are, you will need to reply to the email that adminfd sends out so that I know that your email address is valid. In fact, everyone should do this in case you make a mistake with your email address. Reply to the email that gets send out! The reason for this is that this forum has gotten to be a bi ..read more

Ok, back to the original question. I think I need to do some slight fixin' on it. FrediFizzx wrote: FrediFizzx wrote:This expression seems a bit odd to me. In order to get the probabilities for each of the four outcome pairs say in a large simulation, they first have to be averaged over many trials per (a-b) angle. It seems to me that in a proper simulation each of the four probabilities are going to converge to 1/4 for very large number of trials. At least that is what I am finding with our latest simulation. Ave ++ = 0.248903 Ave -- = 0.248803 Ave +- = 0.246508 Ave -+ = 0.255786 That ..read more

If I have done everything correctly this entire forum has been set to Read Only Access. It will be this way for a while. . Statistics: Posted by FrediFizzx — Wed Nov 03, 2021 2:01 pm ..read more

Now, maybe one of you guys can come up with a real example instead of junk nonsense. Remember, we are doing a freakin' simulation!!! I'm claiming in the context of a simulation where is dependent on the number of trials, that if < f > = < g >, then f = g!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! . Statistics: Posted by FrediFizzx — Wed Nov 03, 2021 3:01 am ..read more

Gordon Watson wrote: Fred, as you increase the number of trials, N, so you will approach the infinite case in the limit. Gordon No sh*t! Perfect example of a nonsense post. I don't recall any other day in my life where I was more pissed off than today!!!! And sicker than hell to boot!!! . Statistics: Posted by FrediFizzx — Wed Nov 03, 2021 1:08 am ..read more

FrediFizzx wrote: Gordon Watson wrote: FrediFizzx wrote:It's quite simple. Don't post nonsense and your post won't be deleted. I have yet to see any reasonable arguments against what Mathematica says. I know some of you are smarter than what you are portraying. So, get with it! Let's see some no-nonsense posts. I can think of at least one example that you might be able to get it to work. . Fred, I posted a no-nonsense comment. It supported Mathematica, but not your interpretation. As I recall, you responded by asking a new question that my post had answered: but without quoting me. When I ..read more

Gordon Watson wrote: FrediFizzx wrote:It's quite simple. Don't post nonsense and your post won't be deleted. I have yet to see any reasonable arguments against what Mathematica says. I know some of you are smarter than what you are portraying. So, get with it! Let's see some no-nonsense posts. I can think of at least one example that you might be able to get it to work. . Fred, I posted a no-nonsense comment. It supported Mathematica, but not your interpretation. As I recall, you responded by asking a new question that my post had answered: but without quoting me. When I sought to find my ..read more

FrediFizzx wrote: It's quite simple. Don't post nonsense and your post won't be deleted. I have yet to see any reasonable arguments against what Mathematica says. I know some of you are smarter than what you are portraying. So, get with it! Let's see some no-nonsense posts. I can think of at least one example that you might be able to get it to work. . Fred, I posted a no-nonsense comment. It supported Mathematica, but not your interpretation. As I recall, you responded by asking a new question that my post had answered: but without quoting me. When I sought to find my original comment it h ..read more

FrediFizzx wrote: It's quite simple. Don't post nonsense and your post won't be deleted. I have yet to see any reasonable arguments against what Mathematica says. I know some of you are smarter than what you are portraying. So, get with it! Let's see some no-nonsense posts. I can think of at least one example that you might be able to get it to work. @Joy I figured out your mistake. You are in fact assuming infinite sampling for x. When done like a simulation like we are doing we have, That depends on the number of trials and will actually vary from run to run. If you were able to do inf ..read more

FrediFizzx wrote: It's quite simple. Don't post nonsense and your post won't be deleted. I have yet to see any reasonable arguments against what Mathematica says. I know some of you are smarter than what you are portraying. So, get with it! Let's see some no-nonsense posts. I can think of at least one example that you might be able to get it to work. But you are the one who is posting nonsense. You are claiming that 1 + x and 1 + sin(x) are the same function because Mathematica says so. If so, then Mathematica too is talking nonsense. . Statistics: Posted by Joy Christian — Tue Nov 02, 2021 ..read more