{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04002808988764045, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014044943820224719, 'mean_word_length': 4.56640625, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Is Signal Synchrony Independent of Transport Synchrony?

Beauregard ([1], p. 488) claims that Bowman and I were mistaken in saying that ". . . if the empirical predictions of the Special Theory regarding clock transport are correct, [then] a slow transport definition of simultaneity can be constructed that is logically independent of any signal definition, but is in fact equivalent to the standard signal definition" ([2], p. 131) His objection is not to the empirical concordance of the two criteria, but to the claim that the two are logically independent. His argument is that we fail to take account of Winnie's Passage Time Principle ([4], p. 228), and that if due account is taken of this principle, then "the concordance between the two criteria is logically guaranteed by the synchrony-free factual core of the STR" ([1], p. 488). However, one cannot show that A is not logically independent of B by showing that it is not independent of B and C. Hence, Beauregard's argument fails against the quoted passage. Beauregard can reasonably argue that in section 5 of [2], we defended a claim somewhat stronger than the one made in this passage. Standard signal and slow transport synchrony are obviously logically independent, and it would be absurd to devote a whole section to this independence issue, if this were all we had in mind. In section 5 of [2] we attempted to show that there is a possible world in which