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/9610010

A Collection of Probabilistic Hidden-Variable Theorems and Counterexamples

Patrick Suppes, J. Acácio de Barros, Gary Oas

Published Oct 8, 1996• 9 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to formulate a number of probabilistic hidden-variable theorems, to provide proofs in some cases, and counterexamples to some conjectured relationships. The first theorem is the fundamental one. It asserts the general equivalence of the existence of a hidden variable and the existence of a joint probability distribution of the observed quatities, whether finite or continuous.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/9610010

Related papers

Existence of hidden variables having only upper probabilities

Patrick Suppes, Mario Zanotti

Foundations of Physics•Dec 1, 1991•28 citations

On joint distributions, counterfactual values and hidden variables in understanding contextuality

Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov

This paper deals with three traditional ways of defining contextuality: (C1) in terms of (non)existence of certain joint distributions involving measurements made in several mutually exclusive contexts; (C2) in terms of relationship between factual measurements in a given context and counterfactual measurements that could be made if one used other contexts; and (C3) in terms of (non)existence of 'hidden variables' that determine the outcomes of all factually performed measurements. It is generally believed that the three meanings are equivalent, but the issues involved are not entirely transparent. Thus, arguments have been offered that C2 may have nothing to do with C1, and the traditional formulation of C1 itself encounters difficulties when measurement outcomes in a contextual system are treated as random variables. I show that if C1 is formulated within the framework of the Contextuality-by-Default (CbD) theory, the notion of a probabilistic coupling, the core mathematical tool of CbD, subsumes both counterfactual values and 'hidden variables'. In the latter case, a coupling itself can be viewed as a maximally parsimonious choice of a hidden variable. This article is part of the theme issue 'Contextuality and probability in quantum mechanics and beyond'.

arXiv:1809.04528•Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Sep 16, 2019•23 citations

Generalization of the proof on the existence of hidden measurements to experiments with an infinite set of outcomes

Bob Coecke

Foundations of Physics Letters•Oct 1, 1995•32 citations

Hidden Variables and Incompatible Observables in Quantum Mechanics

Benjamin H. Feintzeig

This article takes up a suggestion that the reason we cannot find certain hidden variable theories for quantum mechanics, as in Bell’s theorem, is that we require them to assign joint probability distributions on incompatible observables. These joint distributions are problematic because they are empirically meaningless on one standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. Some have proposed getting around this problem by using generalized probability spaces. I present a theorem to show a sense in which generalized probability spaces can’t serve as hidden variable theories for quantum mechanics, so the proposal for getting around Bell’s theorem fails. 1 Introduction2 Bell’s Theorem and Classical Probability Spaces 2.1 Bell’s derivation of the Bell inequalities 2.2 Pitowsky’s derivation of the Bell inequalities3 Incompatible Observables4 Generalized Probability Spaces5 A ‘No-Go’ Theorem6 Conclusions

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Aug 31, 2014•5 citations

Generalized Hidden Variables Theorem

Platon C. Deliyannis

Two versions of the hidden variables theorem are presented with minimum hypotheses. The second is intended to be an answer to a question raised by Jauch and Mackey regarding the existence of approximately dispersion-free states.

Journal of Mathematical Physics•Jun 1, 1971•6 citations

New Bell-type inequalities for N > 4 necessary for existence of a hidden variable

Patrick Suppes, Mario Zanotti

INTRODUCTION Fine (1982) proved that Bell's (1964) inequalities are sufficient, as well as necessary, to guarantee the existence of a joint probability distribution of the random variables in question, e.g., those representing certain spin correlation experiments. Garg and Mermin (1982) gave an example of eight random variables satisfying Bell's inequalities but such that no joint distribution exists. The purpose of this paper is to extend Bell's inequalities to obtain some general necessary conditions for the existence of a joint probability distribution for any finite collection of Bell-type random variables. Our results show that, for N > 4, many new elementary inequalities beyond those of Bell must be satisfied by any hidden-variable theory. Since these additional inequalities are violated by quantum mechanical predictions for appropriate choice of measurement arrangements, they serve to increase the conceptual distance between what may be called Einstein locality, after the EPR paradox, and quantum mechanics. To give a concrete sense of the nature of our results, we exhibit one of the new inequalities violated by Garg and Mermin's example. For theoretical purposes it will suffice to introduce Bell-type random variables X 1 ,…, X N , N ≥ 4, having possible values ±1, with means E ( X i ) = 0 and with what we term Bell covariances E ( X i X j ) relative to the index i 0 , with 1 ≤ i ≤ i 0 , N , 2 ≤ i 0 N – 2. Notice that, when N = 4, we must, as is familiar, have i 0 = 2.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 13, 1996•0 citations
The purpose of this article is to formulate a number of probabilistic hidden-variable theorems, to provide proofs in some cases, and counterexamples to some conjectured relationships. The first theorem is the fundamental one. It asserts the general equivalence of the existence of a hidden variable and the existence of a joint probability distribution of the observed quatities, whether finite or continuous.
This paper deals with three traditional ways of defining contextuality: (C1) in terms of (non)existence of certain joint distributions involving measurements made in several mutually exclusive contexts; (C2) in terms of relationship between factual measurements in a given context and counterfactual measurements that could be made if one used other contexts; and (C3) in terms of (non)existence of 'hidden variables' that determine the outcomes of all factually performed measurements. It is generally believed that the three meanings are equivalent, but the issues involved are not entirely transparent. Thus, arguments have been offered that C2 may have nothing to do with C1, and the traditional formulation of C1 itself encounters difficulties when measurement outcomes in a contextual system are treated as random variables. I show that if C1 is formulated within the framework of the Contextuality-by-Default (CbD) theory, the notion of a probabilistic coupling, the core mathematical tool of CbD, subsumes both counterfactual values and 'hidden variables'. In the latter case, a coupling itself can be viewed as a maximally parsimonious choice of a hidden variable. This article is part of the theme issue 'Contextuality and probability in quantum mechanics and beyond'.
This article takes up a suggestion that the reason we cannot find certain hidden variable theories for quantum mechanics, as in Bell’s theorem, is that we require them to assign joint probability distributions on incompatible observables. These joint distributions are problematic because they are empirically meaningless on one standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. Some have proposed getting around this problem by using generalized probability spaces. I present a theorem to show a sense in which generalized probability spaces can’t serve as hidden variable theories for quantum mechanics, so the proposal for getting around Bell’s theorem fails. 1 Introduction2 Bell’s Theorem and Classical Probability Spaces 2.1 Bell’s derivation of the Bell inequalities 2.2 Pitowsky’s derivation of the Bell inequalities3 Incompatible Observables4 Generalized Probability Spaces5 A ‘No-Go’ Theorem6 Conclusions
INTRODUCTION Fine (1982) proved that Bell's (1964) inequalities are sufficient, as well as necessary, to guarantee the existence of a joint probability distribution of the random variables in question, e.g., those representing certain spin correlation experiments. Garg and Mermin (1982) gave an example of eight random variables satisfying Bell's inequalities but such that no joint distribution exists. The purpose of this paper is to extend Bell's inequalities to obtain some general necessary conditions for the existence of a joint probability distribution for any finite collection of Bell-type random variables. Our results show that, for N > 4, many new elementary inequalities beyond those of Bell must be satisfied by any hidden-variable theory. Since these additional inequalities are violated by quantum mechanical predictions for appropriate choice of measurement arrangements, they serve to increase the conceptual distance between what may be called Einstein locality, after the EPR paradox, and quantum mechanics. To give a concrete sense of the nature of our results, we exhibit one of the new inequalities violated by Garg and Mermin's example. For theoretical purposes it will suffice to introduce Bell-type random variables X 1 ,…, X N , N ≥ 4, having possible values ±1, with means E ( X i ) = 0 and with what we term Bell covariances E ( X i X j ) relative to the index i 0 , with 1 ≤ i ≤ i 0 , N , 2 ≤ i 0 N – 2. Notice that, when N = 4, we must, as is familiar, have i 0 = 2.