Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:quant-ph/0703180

Update for "The collapse of Bell determinism"

James D. Malley

Published Mar 19, 2007• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We update our paper: The collapse of Bell determinism (Physics Letters A, 359 (2006): 122-125; available online 16 June 2006). First, we point out that Olivier Brunet, using lattice theoretic methods, has recently, and quite independently, derived the core technical lemma of our paper; see: A priori knowledge and the Kochen-Specker theorem (Physics Letters A, available online 5 January 2007). He has also kindly pointed out a misstep in the last line of one of our results. We discuss the correction and comment on slightly revised notions of how Bell determinism collapses. We also correct a few typos in the original paper.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0703180

Related papers

An Epistemological Criticism to the Bell–Kochen–Specker Theorem

Claudio Garola, Luigi Accardi, Guillaume Adenier +5 more

The Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem is criticized from an epistemological point of view, showing that its proofs rest on an implicit epistemological assumption which does not fit in with the operational and antimetaphysical attitude of orthodox quantum mechanics.

AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2009•6 citations

Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell

N. David Mermin

Although skeptical of the prohibitive power of no-hidden-variables theorems, John Bell was himself responsible for the two most important ones. I describe some recent versions of the lesser known of the two (familiar to experts as the "Kochen-Specker theorem") which have transparently simple proofs. One of the new versions can be converted without additional analysis into a powerful form of the very much better known "Bell's Theorem," thereby clarifying the conceptual link between these two results of Bell.

arXiv:1802.10119•Reviews of Modern Physics•Jul 1, 1993•1,076 citations

Are there really two different Bell's theorems?

Travis Norsen

This is a polemical response to Howard Wiseman's recent paper, "The two Bell's theorems of John Bell". Wiseman argues that, in 1964, Bell established a conflict between the quantum mechanical predictions and the joint assumptions of determinism and (what is now usually known as) "parameter independence". Only later, in 1976, did Bell, according to Wiseman, first establish a conflict between the quantum mechanical predictions and locality alone (in the specific form that Bell would sometimes call "local causality"). Thus, according to Wiseman, the long-standing disagreements about what, exactly, Bell's theorem does and does not prove can be understood largely as miscommunications resulting from the fact that there are really two quite distinct "Bell's theorems". My goal here is to lay out what Wiseman briefly describes as an "alternate reading" of Bell's 1964 paper, according to which (quoting Wiseman here) "the first paragraph of Bell's `Formulation' section [should be seen] as an essential part of his 1964 theorem, the first part of a two-part argument." I will argue in particular that this "alternate reading" is the correct way to understand Bell's 1964 paper and that Wiseman's reading is strongly inconsistent with the available evidence.

arXiv:1503.05017•International journal of quantum foundations•Mar 17, 2015•16 citations

Comments on determinism, locality, Bell’s theorem and quantum mechanics

A. Berthelot

Il Nuovo cimento della Società italiana di fisica. B/Il Nuovo cimento B•Jun 1, 1980•5 citations

Kochen-Specker theorem revisited

Del Rajan, Matt Visser

The Kochen-Specker theorem is a basic and fundamental 50 year old non-existence result affecting the foundations of quantum mechanix, strongly implying the lack of any meaningful notion of "quantum realism", and typically leading to discussions of "contextuality" in quantum physics. Original proofs of the Kochen-Specker theorem proceeded via brute force counter-examples; often quite complicated and subtle (albeit mathematically "elementary") counter-examples. Only more recently have somewhat more "geometrical" proofs been developed. We present herein yet another simplified geometrical proof of the Kochen-Specker theorem, one that is valid for any number of dimensions, that minimizes the technical machinery involved, and makes the seriousness of the issues raised manifest.

arXiv:1708.01380•Aug 4, 2017•5 citations

An algebraic characterisation of Kochen-Specker contextuality

Markus Frembs

Contextuality is a key distinguishing feature between classical and quantum physics. It expresses a fundamental obstruction to describing quantum theory using classical concepts. In turn, understood as a resource for quantum computation, it is expected to hold the key to quantum advantage. Yet, despite its long recognised importance in quantum foundations and, more recently, in quantum computation, the structural essence of contextuality has remained somewhat elusive - different frameworks address different aspects of the phenomenon, yet their precise relationship often remains unclear. This issue already looms large at the level of the Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem: while traditional proofs proceed by showing the nonexistence of valuations, the notion of state-independent contextuality in the marginal approach allows to prove contextuality from seemingly weaker assumptions. In the light of this, and at the absence of a unified mathematical framework for Kochen-Specker contextuality, the original algebraic approach has been widely abandoned, in favour of the study of contextual correlations. Here, we reinstate the algebraic perspective on contextuality. Concretely, by building on the novel concept of context connections, we reformulate the algebraic relations between observables originally postulated by Kochen and Specker, and we explicitly demonstrate their consistency with the notion of state-independent contextuality. In the present paper, we focus on the new conceptual ideas and discuss them in the concrete setting of spin-1 observables, specifically those in the example of [S. Yu and C.H. Oh, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 030402 (2012)]; in a companion paper, we generalise these ideas, obtain a complete characterisation of Kochen-Specker contextuality and provide a detailed comparison with the related notions of contextuality in the marginal and graph-theoretic approach.

arXiv:2408.16764•Aug 29, 2024•1 citation
We update our paper: The collapse of Bell determinism (Physics Letters A, 359 (2006): 122-125; available online 16 June 2006). First, we point out that Olivier Brunet, using lattice theoretic methods, has recently, and quite independently, derived the core technical lemma of our paper; see: A priori knowledge and the Kochen-Specker theorem (Physics Letters A, available online 5 January 2007). He has also kindly pointed out a misstep in the last line of one of our results. We discuss the correction and comment on slightly revised notions of how Bell determinism collapses. We also correct a few typos in the original paper.
Although skeptical of the prohibitive power of no-hidden-variables theorems, John Bell was himself responsible for the two most important ones. I describe some recent versions of the lesser known of the two (familiar to experts as the "Kochen-Specker theorem") which have transparently simple proofs. One of the new versions can be converted without additional analysis into a powerful form of the very much better known "Bell's Theorem," thereby clarifying the conceptual link between these two results of Bell.
This is a polemical response to Howard Wiseman's recent paper, "The two Bell's theorems of John Bell". Wiseman argues that, in 1964, Bell established a conflict between the quantum mechanical predictions and the joint assumptions of determinism and (what is now usually known as) "parameter independence". Only later, in 1976, did Bell, according to Wiseman, first establish a conflict between the quantum mechanical predictions and locality alone (in the specific form that Bell would sometimes call "local causality"). Thus, according to Wiseman, the long-standing disagreements about what, exactly, Bell's theorem does and does not prove can be understood largely as miscommunications resulting from the fact that there are really two quite distinct "Bell's theorems". My goal here is to lay out what Wiseman briefly describes as an "alternate reading" of Bell's 1964 paper, according to which (quoting Wiseman here) "the first paragraph of Bell's `Formulation' section [should be seen] as an essential part of his 1964 theorem, the first part of a two-part argument." I will argue in particular that this "alternate reading" is the correct way to understand Bell's 1964 paper and that Wiseman's reading is strongly inconsistent with the available evidence.
The Kochen-Specker theorem is a basic and fundamental 50 year old non-existence result affecting the foundations of quantum mechanix, strongly implying the lack of any meaningful notion of "quantum realism", and typically leading to discussions of "contextuality" in quantum physics. Original proofs of the Kochen-Specker theorem proceeded via brute force counter-examples; often quite complicated and subtle (albeit mathematically "elementary") counter-examples. Only more recently have somewhat more "geometrical" proofs been developed. We present herein yet another simplified geometrical proof of the Kochen-Specker theorem, one that is valid for any number of dimensions, that minimizes the technical machinery involved, and makes the seriousness of the issues raised manifest.
Contextuality is a key distinguishing feature between classical and quantum physics. It expresses a fundamental obstruction to describing quantum theory using classical concepts. In turn, understood as a resource for quantum computation, it is expected to hold the key to quantum advantage. Yet, despite its long recognised importance in quantum foundations and, more recently, in quantum computation, the structural essence of contextuality has remained somewhat elusive - different frameworks address different aspects of the phenomenon, yet their precise relationship often remains unclear. This issue already looms large at the level of the Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem: while traditional proofs proceed by showing the nonexistence of valuations, the notion of state-independent contextuality in the marginal approach allows to prove contextuality from seemingly weaker assumptions. In the light of this, and at the absence of a unified mathematical framework for Kochen-Specker contextuality, the original algebraic approach has been widely abandoned, in favour of the study of contextual correlations. Here, we reinstate the algebraic perspective on contextuality. Concretely, by building on the novel concept of context connections, we reformulate the algebraic relations between observables originally postulated by Kochen and Specker, and we explicitly demonstrate their consistency with the notion of state-independent contextuality. In the present paper, we focus on the new conceptual ideas and discuss them in the concrete setting of spin-1 observables, specifically those in the example of [S. Yu and C.H. Oh, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 030402 (2012)]; in a companion paper, we generalise these ideas, obtain a complete characterisation of Kochen-Specker contextuality and provide a detailed comparison with the related notions of contextuality in the marginal and graph-theoretic approach.