3 ms·

I am not sure that I have made every implication of my position clear to you, as the arguments in the paragraph beginning "now we get to the critical part", and

I am not sure that I have made every implication of my position clear to you, as the arguments in the paragraph beginning "now we get to the critical part", and even more so in the update following it, imply that if there is some calculation where one can just plug in the numbers without explicitly or implicitly taking a position on UEIS/UEOS, it will not yield a result that resolves the issue (unless it merely duplicates a set of measurements that could just as well have been made locally, in which case the excercise would have been pointless.) I think the best thing we can do at this point is to agree to disagree, especially as we are disagreeing over a hypothetical set of measurements and a calculation that neither of us can specify.

Dylan16807 7y ago
> I think the best thing we can do at this point is to agree to disagree I would say yes to this except for your parenthetical there. Reading that, I think we're finally on the same page. > unless it merely duplicates a set of measurements that could just as well have been made locally, in which case the excercise would have been pointless Yes, it does duplicate the measurements that could have been made locally. But to whoever is writing the proof it's easier to use them in the 'remote galaxy' form. So it's not pointless. It's a critical part of that particular proof. So with that noted down, I think everything is resolved?
- mannykannot 7y ago
  I'm fine with that.