"Many years ago (about 1984), I used to give a Mathematical Physics course to the Part II students. I illustrated the quantum paradox covered by Bell's theorem by showing that you can't program two independently running computers to mimic the results of spin measurements on two spin-1/2 particles in a singlet state. I believe this demonstration is actually better than Bell's original argument: bell.pdf"
I have two questions (other than please don't close it due to me obviously not being a scientist, let alone a physicist)
It's a bit embarrassing to say, but I'm simply trying to understand it. English is not may native language, and I simply have a problem to understand some of the handwritten words, and although this is not an english language community, I'm sure a background in physics will help understand it from context.
Are there any resources out there that can help me, (who has a youtube and wikipedia level of understanding of Bell's theorem, in other words, non whatsoever), to fully understand Gull's explanation?
My attempt to understand
In the risk of making a fool of myself, but to show I at least tried a little, from what I can understand, he's sketching a proof to Bell's theorem, and using Fourier transform, to prove that two (obviously deterministic, and using hidden variables, by definition) distant computers can't ever use any formula that will let them agree on some result, that mimics the observed (and theoretical) quantum behavior around entanglement, where the timing of the "measurement" of both computer can't be known (if it was known, you could use something like a time based temporary password generator, but these have a time window where the two remote systems are correlated, but if I understand correctly, the quantum behavior is that once "one side" was observed, the other's observation is "locked" forever and won't change over time. e.g. even if they agree on some internal state using a time based PRNG, they can't know when the other will "lock" (that's my logical explanation, not sure if it sounds like I don't know what I'm taking about, as I don't feel that I know what I'm talking about) but it seems he's using some other proof using Fourier transform, and due to me not understanding the handwriting (no offense, it's me, not him), I don't feel I even have a chance to try to figure out the math (that's an excuse I'm telling myself probably, so help explaining the Fourier part will be appreciated as well)
tl;dr I need help with both English, Math and Physics, I will understand if you will choose to close this question, as I do ask for a lot. But I really want to be able to understand this (I emailed him as well. And just to clarify, I'm not a student of his, or a student in general, I painfully did my masters in CS in my 40s and realized that both the academic world and myself will be much better off if I don't quit my day job).