Summary of the discussion of Joy Christian's proposals

[Schmelzer]

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:

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

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

There are two particles which both have "s" from their common creation. One particle's "s" goes to "a" the other goes to "b".
...
If helps you to keep track of it, you could label them as \(s_A\) and \(s_B\) with \(s = s_A = s_B\).

In #86 I have argued that this does not help, the whole thing remains meaningless and allows to prove even \(1=2\):

We know that \(1\neq 2\).  So, there has to be something wrong in the following line:
\[ 1 = \lim_{s_A\to 1} s_A =  \lim_{s_A\to 1\,\,s_B\to 2} s_A \stackrel{s_A=s_B}{=}  \lim_{s_A\to 1\,\,s_B\to 2} s_B = \lim_{s_B\to 2} s_B = 2. \]
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?

I have seen no reasonable objection.

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.