Originally posted by PalynkaSubstantiate this by quoting from the article.
The way I see it, he first disproved the theorem based on finite precision measurement and ONLY THEN suggested an framework where the theorem also doesn't apply.
Here's a hint: you won't. Cause that's not the point of the article.
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockOk, I do agree that Perez's article can be read both ways, so since I don't know Meyer's then I concede the point.
Substantiate this by quoting from the article.
Here's a hint: you won't. Cause that's not the point of the article.
Nevertheless, the idea that finite measurement implies Euclidean Geometry doesn't apply (and the KS theorem along with it) isn't particularly shocking. Also, Perez didn't say that Meyer disproved the theorem, he simply said that he claimed it to be nullified (e.g. doesn't apply) under his proposal. He is not disproving the mathematics of it, he is claiming that the setting under which the KS theorem applies is not the one implied by finite measurement.
Originally posted by PalynkaI know what Peres did, even though I didn't use the most accurate language. But I think I said so many times during my posts.
Ok, I do agree that Perez's article can be read both ways, so since I don't know Meyer's then I concede the point.
Nevertheless, the idea that finite measurement implies Euclidean Geometry doesn't apply (and the KS theorem along with it) isn't particularly shocking. Also, Perez didn't say that Meyer disproved the theorem, he simply said that he claimed it ...[text shortened]... setting under which the KS theorem applies is not the one implied by finite measurement.