Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

3
  • $\begingroup$ The model you describe doesn't violate Bell's inequality. If the spin direction is chosen uniformly at random, then the model gives a triangle-shaped correlation function that you can see in many discussions of Bell's theorem (e.g. the red curve here), which saturates the inequality. Jaynes knew that, and wasn't making the argument that you think he was making. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 13, 2022 at 2:43
  • $\begingroup$ @galen your edit has significantly changed the tone of the post. It is certainly improved but I suspect the OP was deliberately provocative so your edit goes against the intent of the OP. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 13, 2022 at 4:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I do appreciate the edit, as my tone was uncalled for and I offer my apologies. I will study this more. but it does seem almost impossible to discuss without actual data, if any is available in a simple xls file. Also, without specifying what the measurment devices actually do, it is likewise difficult to discuss. My assumed method is likely far off., as I have written a simple C++ program that passes the 3 machine Randi challenge with this assumption quite easily. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 14, 2022 at 0:11