Given that we have now already more than 120 posts in a single thread about Joy Christian's proposals, it seems necessary to have some summary. As the owner of the forum, I will use my power to write my own summary and do not leave it open for replies. Those who want to object, can do this in the thread itself.

A large part of the discussion has been about arxiv:1103.1879

Gill has criticized it in #97:

I have criticized the paper for using a meaningless limit \(\lim_{s\to a\,\,s\to b}\). This has been defended by Freddi in #74 and #77 with

Instead, as Gill has observed in #116, it appears that Christian makes the same error in the formulas (58)-(68) of arxiv:1405.2355v4 again (submitted Wed, 29 Jun 2016), using the denotations \(s_1, s_2\) instead of the \(s_A, s_B\) used here.

A large part of the discussion has been about arxiv:1103.1879

Gill has criticized it in #97:

Quote:Equation (1) says \(A(a, \lambda) = \lambda\), equation (2) says \(B(b, \lambda) = - \lambda\).I have seen no reasonable defense of the criticized formulas.

Equation (4) therefore says \(E(a, b) = -1\) since we are told that \(\lambda = \pm 1\).

...

The only way to save the paper is to abandon equations (1-4).

I have criticized the paper for using a meaningless limit \(\lim_{s\to a\,\,s\to b}\). This has been defended by Freddi in #74 and #77 with

Quote:There are two particles which both have "s" from their common creation. One particle's "s" goes to "a" the other goes to "b".In #86 I have argued that this does not help, the whole thing remains meaningless and allows to prove even \(1=2\):

...

If helps you to keep track of it, you could label them as \(s_A\) and \(s_B\) with \(s = s_A = s_B\).

Quote:We know that \(1\neq 2\). So, there has to be something wrong in the following line:I have seen no reasonable objection.

\[ 1 = \lim_{s_A\to 1} s_A = \lim_{s_A\to 1\,\,s_B\to 2} s_A \stackrel{s_A=s_B}{=} \lim_{s_A\to 1\,\,s_B\to 2} s_B = \lim_{s_B\to 2} s_B = 2. \]

Can you tell me which step is wrong? Similarly, in the variant with s only,

\[ 1 = \lim_{s\to 1} s = \lim_{s\to 1\,\,s\to 2} s = \lim_{s\to 2} s = 2 \]

some step has to be wrong. Which?

Instead, as Gill has observed in #116, it appears that Christian makes the same error in the formulas (58)-(68) of arxiv:1405.2355v4 again (submitted Wed, 29 Jun 2016), using the denotations \(s_1, s_2\) instead of the \(s_A, s_B\) used here.