arXiv:2101.10167v1 [quant-ph] 25 Jan 2021 dex in fteeobservables these of tions that state; a 0 such on correlation h classical linear fragmen a the reveals of momenta angular of equidistribution volving [ method systematic a eto ftofamnso obwihoiial a no [ had direction originally di- any which spacial in bomb a momentum particular of angular a fragments in two momentum of rection angular the be would q corre observables two-partite dichotomic two the of is function tion earlier quoted difference quantum rma nutv,huitcsac nteerydy [ days early the developed in has search heuristic measured intuitive, an and thes from how operationalized Exactly sets. are power of violations (sub)sets in scalars on forme based the whereas entities b vectorial are quan- multi-dimensional latter from on the different” because expectations “being and or probabilities by tum “violated” be to expected ti miial olce rmasre of series a X from collected empirically is It efre.I sasmdta,if that, a assumed is measurements It repetitive these performed. which on state (unaltered) n smntnclyapoce hti,fr“ag enough “large for is, that N – approached monotonically is and .TOPRIEVCO-AE XETTOSNOT EXPECTATIONS VECTOR-BASED TWO-PARTITE I. ∗ X , ≤ [email protected] hc hw snltlk”caatrsis–a example an – characteristics “singlet-like” shows which ti o o ifiutt oe lsia w-att state two-partite classical a model to difficult too not is It versus classical the of expression elementary most The lsia onso rbblte n xettoscnbe can expectations and probabilities on bounds Classical and , h Y X i θ i eest the to refers , c ≤ Y Y .Casclpeitoso snlttp”states “singlet-type” on predictions Classical A. = i π n endby defined and s sa“odapoiain [ approximation” “good a is E hrceie h sailsprto”o h direc- the of separation” “spatial the characterizes AIFIGCASCLBOUNDS CLASSICAL SATISFYING ( X a aclto,cne oyoe contextuality polytope, convex calculation, max ewrs upsZntiieulte,Greenberger-Hor inequalities, Suppes-Zanotti 03. Keywords: 03.65.Aa, 02.10.-v, 02.50.-r, 03.65.Ca, numbers: PACS reviewed. critically are violations Tsi such generalized by corr a respective to correspond the violations of quantum maximal computation hull the by (re-)derived , Y h upsZntiieulte novn h on expec joint the involving inequalities Suppes-Zanotti The unu ilto fteSpe-aot nqaiisad“ and inequalities Suppes-Zanotti the of violation Quantum = ) ; i http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/˜svozil hmaueet and measurement, th 4 E – ( 8 θ h ]. X X = ) , Y and i − s Y ≈ 1 N . + N 1 nrae,telmtexists limit the increases, 2 ∑ θ ide apsrse81/3,14 ina Austria Vienna, 1040 8-10/136, Hauptstrasse Wiedner 9 10 i N = ]. / s .A ruetin- argument An ]. π 1 N X hr h angle the where , eest specific a to refers nttt o hoeia hsc,T Wien, TU Physics, Theoretical for Institute X i esrmnsof measurements Y , i hr h in- the where , Y {− ∈ Dtd aur 6 2021) 26, January (Dated: 1 – 1 3 , into ] + ased are r alSvozil Karl 1 la- is, re } ts eZiigragmn,Kce-pce hoe,Br rule Born theorem, Kochen-Specker argument, ne-Zeilinger e ” 7A,03.65.Ud 67.Ac, . with h on xettosadu codnl;e.g., accordingly; up add expectations joint the infrasnltsaei h elbasis Bell the in state singlet a for tion ∑ irr ieto hrceie yteshrclcoordina spherical the by 0 characterized direction bitrary xasie,w a ups that (i.e. complete suppose are is can types enumeration we ball our the their exhaustive), scheme with and a associated exclusive such colors mutually in the Since in observables. symbols three respective the to [ partitions eto prtr are operators jection lmnaiy[ c plementarity allowing automata of problems identification finite-state u rdcinyields prediction tum “ S att xettosis expectations partite − [ model rjcinoperator projection σ matrices S le ihbakblspitdwt he ifrn colors, different three observable with per painted color balls one black with filled evbemyhv w ifrn ucmsw a,frin- “ for by can, outcomes we these outcomes label different two stance, have may servable ino altps tcnol eacrandta hyoc- they that distribu- ascertained arbitrary be an only with such 0 can filled probabilities eight it with is are types, cur urn There ball the of As tion colors. respective types. the ball in balls these lto oyoe i-a aclto eel its reveals calculation min-max A polytope. elation − ain fjs he iayqatmosralsare observables quantum binary three just of tations x ± −− k esnbud oin f“otxult”motivated “contextuality” of Notions bound. relson ≤ [ ups eaeitrse ntecreainfunc- correlation the in interested are we Suppose h unu rdcin fasnl bevbei nar- an in observable single a of predictions quantum The ocntutagnrccasclstain eeaie u generalized a situation, classical generic a construct To ntrso eeaie r oes ecnie urns consider we models, urn generalized of terms In ∈{ sin cos 2 n “ and ” ∗ ( θ + − θ θ 2 , θ −} ≤ ( , 11 1 cos | S ϕ Ψ cos σ  + π 2 .Qatmpeitoso ige state singlet a on predictions Quantum C. sitoue hc a lob hae ntrsof terms in phrased be also can which introduced is ] λ − + x ) 13 − ϕ , ial,teoeao soitdwt h two- the with associated operator the Finally, . ++ n 0 and i ,rsetvl.Tersetv w-att pro- two-partite respective The respectively. ”, θ + σ n oe sets. power and ] + 12 2 y , .Gnrlcasclpredictions classical General B. k S + = σ and .Isfraiaini ntrso set-theoretic of terms in is formalization Its ]. + − y cos + sin ≤ λ S = ) √ −− 1 σ ( ± 2 ϕ θ ϕ z S ( , 1 sin F k θ σ σ < σ omn h pnoperator spin the forming 0 ± ≤ − − ( , , 1 ( X 1 ϕ ± contextuality” 2 θ ϕ ϕ λ , , π 2 X 1 = ) λ − Y h ±±± 2 + ( , X , ) + θ ϕ = ) sdrvdfo h al spin Pauli the from derived is 1 sin σ 1 − , 1 Y , , Y 2 1 ) z , 0 ϕ k and , cos ≤ [ ⊗ i
θ + I 1 F q ⊺ 1 2 ∑ , + σ hntequan- the then , σ σ ( ,wr h nie refer indices the were 1, θ λ sin ± θ θ i = n “ and ” , 2 ( − 1 j θ , σ , σ σ n h igeparticle single the and + , k ϕ θ 2 Z ϕ ∈{ , ( 2 , F 2 k ic ahob- each Since . θ 1 ϕ ]
 = ) min- , + ( For . , , 2 θ θ , ϕ . −} ) 1 2 − q . )] , , S ϕ ϕ λ ,pitdon printed ”, = o h states the for ± 1 jk i 2 , = ) 1 σ σ E θ σ | ( Ψ = θ 2 ( ( , X 1 θ − ϕ , S ,and 1, , , ih ϕ 2 Y ++ ϕ = ) 1 Ψ om- = ) = ) ) tes − rn ⊗ + | , 2

ϕ1 = ϕ2 this reduces to the well-known cosine form The original method of deriving these bounds is rather in- X,Y q = F(θ1,0,θ2,0)= F(θ1 θ2)= cos(θ1 θ2), that volved. But with today’s convex polytope techniques [4, is,h thei two-partite correlation− for dichotomic− observable− s 7, 20] it is not too difficult to derive those inequalities: X,Y = 1 of the two-partite singlet state is proportional to (i) form all possible combinations of joint occurrences by the Euclidean± scalar product between the vectors associated multiplying the respective dichotomic observables – in this with X and Y . case E(X,Y)= XY, E(X,Z)= XZ, E(Y,Z)= Y Z; (ii) form The maximal quantum-to-classical violations the 3-tuples (that is, the finite ordered list or sequence) of all three numbers for particular instances of X,Y,Z 2 1,+1 E(X,Y),E(X,Z),E(Y,Z) = XY,XZ,YZ , (iii)∈ 2 2 1 2 max E(θ) F(θ) = 1 cos− 0.2 {−pretend these} 3-tuples are coordinates (with respect to the θ 0,π | − | s − π − π π ≈ ∈{ }  

(1) Cartesian three-dimensional standard basis) of vertices of a resulting from less, as well as more, equal occurrences of convex polytope, and (iv) according to the Minkowski-Weyl the joint observables ++/ and + / +, occur at angles “main” representation theorem [21–23] represent this poly- (d/dθ)[E(θ) F(θ)] = 0,−− that is, at − − tope as its facets by the hull computation [23, 24]. These facet − (in)equalities represent Boole-Bell type “conditions of possi- 2 ble (classical) experience”. θ = sin 1 as well as − π With three dichotomic observables, such procedures result (2) in eight three-dimensional row vectors. Four of them are lin- 1 2 θ = π sin− , respectively. − π early independent. They are interpreted as the vertices of a correlation polytope. The row vectors, stacked on top of one another, form a 4 3 Travis [25] matrix [26] D. Quantum predictions on more general pure states × +1 +1 +1 By a min-max calculation [14] it is not too difficult to com- +1 1 1 Ti j =  − − . (5) pute those quantum states which, given arbitrary angles be- 1 +1 1 −1 1 +−1 tween the two observables X and Y , yield the minimal and − −  maximal correlations: all that is needed is the eigensystem of   The hull computation (eg, by pycddlib [27], a Python wrap- F(θ ,ϕ ,θ ,ϕ ). Rather than enumerating this eigensystem in 1 1 2 2 per of Fukuda’s cddlib algorithm [28] implementing the full generality the special case θ = θ and θ = ϕ = ϕ = 0 is 1 2 1 2 Double Description Method [29]) yields the four Suppes- posted, resulting in the (decomposable) vectors (modulo nor- Zanotti-Brodi inequalities [15, 16] malization) ⊺ 1 E(X,Y)+ E(X,Z)+ E(Y,Z), ψ1,min = 0,cosθ + 1,0,sinθ as well as − ≤ | i ⊺ (3) 1 E(X,Y) E(X,Z)+ E(Y,Z), ψ2,min = cosθ 1,0,sinθ,0
− ≤− − (6) | i − 1 E(X,Y) E(X,Z) E(Y,Z), − ≤ − − for the minimal expectation X,Y = 1;
and 1 E(X,Y)+ E(X,Z) E(Y,Z). h i − − ≤− − ⊺ ψ1,max = 0,cosθ 1,0,sinθ as well as | i − ⊺ (4) ψ2,max = cosθ + 1,0,sinθ,0 B. Quantum bounds by min-max calculation | i
for the maximal expectation X,Y = 1,
respectively. h i The min-max calculations [14] of the associated operators F(X,Y) F(X,Z) F(Y,Z) with the quantum expectation F as defined± earlier amounts± to summing up the separate terms II. THE CASE OF TREE OBSERVABLES and determining the eigensystem of these new observables. It yields quantum bounds allowing ranges bounded by A. Classical bounds 3 < F(X,Y ) F(X,Z) F(Y,Z) < 3 (7) One might as well stop here, contemplate the elementary − ± ± difference between two forms of probabilitiesbased on scalars which violate the classical ones (6) by almost the greatest al- and power sets in the classical case, and on vectors and the gebraically possible amount. vector space spanned by them in the quantum case, and leave For the sake of more concrete realizations, we shall set it at that. However, this is not what happened historically: all azimuthal angles to zero and take equidistant polar angles Bell and others tried to find criteria for non-compliance with such that the directions of X, Y, and Z in configuration space classical behavior involving more than just two observables. are 0, θ, and 2θ, respectively. Then the min-max compu- In particular, Suppes and Zanotti [15–17] presented special tation associated with F(0,θ)+ F(0,2θ)+ F(θ,2θ) exhibits cases of what Boole called “conditions of possible experi- two eigenvalues ence” [18, 19] involving just three dichotomic observables 1/2 X,Y,Z 1,+1 . µ1 = (5 + 4cosθ) (1 + 2cosθ)= µ2 (8) ∈{− } − ≤− 3 which, in a certain domain of θ, violate the first inequality rewritten as a game “people play” [34–36] in which particular in (6). The associated pure states are proportional to quantum states allow certain players always to win whereas this is not guaranteed classically [37]. ⊺ x1 = a,b, b,a , where | i − a = 2(cosθ + 1
)sinθ and (9) III. THE CASE OF FOUR AND MORE OBSERVABLES b = 2cosθ + cos(2θ)+ √5 + 4cosθ, as well as ⊺ x2 = sinθ,cosθ,cosθ,sinθ , respectively. | i − For completeness, we just mention that the addition of an additional variable yields the well-known Clauser-Horne- Note that for θ 0 these two states converge
to indecompos- ⊺ Shimony-Holt inequalities [2]. A polytope derivation can able vectors proportional→ to the Bell basis states 0,1, 1,0 ⊺ − be found in Refs. [4, 7, 20]. Its quantum bound 2√2 as well as 0,1,1,0 . Indeed, for θ 0, the two other − ≤ →
F(W,Y)+ F(W,Z)+ F(X,Y) F(X,Z) 2√2 derived by eigenstates rendering the two eigenvalues (5+4cosθ)1/2,1+ − ≤
Cirel’son (aka Tsirelson) [38] can be straightforwardly ob- 2cosθ 3, converge to the remaining states in the Bell basis. tained from a min-max calculation [14] of its eigensys- → tem. The quantum states rendering this bound can be rep- ⊺ resented by the vectors proportional to 1,1,1,1 and ⊺ − C. Composition of higher-order distribution by lower-order 1, 1, 1,1 , respectively. ones − − −
The polytope method can be straightforwardly scaled to de- rive Boolean “bounds
of classical experience” for over four For some “practical” application recall Specker’s story observables [39–41]. Their respective quantum violations can about [30] “a wise man from Ninive ... who was ... concerned again be derived by a min-max calculation [14]. almost exclusively about his daughter” and an oracle potential suitors had to cope with: “The suitors were led in front of a table on which three boxes were positioned in a row, and they were ordered to indicate which of the boxes contained a gem IV. “CONTEXTUALITY” IN CONTEXT and which were empty. And now no matter how many times they tried, it seemed to be impossible to solve the task. After Let me add a cautionary remark on the widely held opin- their predictions, each of the suitors was ordered to open two ion that violations of classical Boolean criteria such as boxes which they had indicated to be both empty or both not the Suppes-Zanotti-Brodi inequalities suggest or even im- empty: it turned out each time that one contained a gem and ply “contextuality”. Presently the term “contextual” is often the other did not, and, to be precise, sometimes the gem was heuristically used as “violation of some inequality that is de- in the first, sometimes in the second of the boxes that were rived by assuming classical probability distributions” [42, 43]. opened. But how can it be possible that from three boxes nei- There are a variety of notions [44] and accompanying mea- ther two can be indicated as empty, nor as not empty?” sures [45–48] for the term “contextuality”. A similar scheme was mentioned by Garg and Mermin [5]: This “modern” quantitative use of the word can be con- “if we have three dichotomic variables each of which assumes trasted with Bohr’s synthetic suggestion of a conditionality of either the value 1 or -1 with equal probability and all the pair phenomena by Bohr [49] “the impossibility of any sharp sep- distributions vanish unless the members of the pair have dif- aration between the behavior of atomic objects and the inter- ferent values ... .” action with the measuring instruments which serve to define These scenarios mention three observables and strict anti- the conditions under which the phenomena appear.” A related correlations between pairs of observable outcomes, such proposition from the realist Bell contends that [50] “the result that E(X,Y) = E(X,Z) = E(Y,Z) = 1. As can be read- of an observation may reasonably depend ... on the complete ily checked by the (maximal) violation− of the first Suppes- disposition of the apparatus.” Zanotti-Brodi inequalities (6) no classical global probability However, this does not imply – and it may be even mis- distribution allows this. But quantum mechanics can “al- leading to believe – that these conceivable “results of an ob- most” provide a realization as it yields “almost perfect” anti- servation” (aka outcome/event) are “dormant” properties of correlations at “almost vanishing” angles 0 < θ 1. The the object (alone) which become “visible/actuated” by some “reason” for this is threefold: (i) the quantum expectation≪ “complete disposition of the apparatus” (aka context). More function, as mentioned earlier, is X,Y q = F(θ1,0,θ2,0)= precisely, there need not be any functional (in the sense of h i cos(θ1 θ2); (ii) the three expectation functions are com- uniqueness) dependency of the outcome which originates in −plementary− and therefore cannot be measured simultaneously causes or factors within the observed system; no value definite – they have no simultaneous value definiteness; and (iii) the intrinsic property of the object alone. One could understand quantum resources exploit a four-dimensional Hilbert space Bohr and Bell also by their insistence that the value definite with probabilities based on vectors rather than scalars. properties (characterizing its physical state) of the object be- It might be worth noting that Greenberger, Horne, and come “amalgamated” with (properties of) the measurement Zeilinger proposed another, adaptive, protocol involving ex- apparatus, so that an observation signals the combined infor- pectations of order three and going beyond stochastic quan- mation both of the object as well as of the measurement appa- tum violations of classical predictions [31–33] which could be ratus. 4

If one prepares a quantized system to be in a pure state fore global classical probability distributions; and yet they do formalized by a vector, then it is perfectly value definite for not support any faithful orthogonal representation, and there- observable properties corresponding to that same preparation fore no quantization and no quantum probabilities. The sim- (context). But if there is a mismatch between preparation and plest such example are three observables which, when de- measurement, the latter environment distorts value definite- picted in a hypergraph [70–72], form a cyclical triangular ness by an “inflow” of information from “outside of” the ob- structure. ject. Consequently, it makes no sense to speak of any such It might not be too unreasonably to state that quantum measurement result as “being an element of physical reality” “contextuality” need only to shows up if the observables sat- associated with the observedsystem alone – one has to add the isfy Kochen and Specker’s demarcation criterion by forming (open) environment which “translates” the preparation into some propositional structure that has no classical realization the measurement, thereby introducing (external with respect and no joint probability distribution. Before that one is talk- to the object) noise [51]. ing about “complementary” configurations, which also allow global classical probability distributions – albeit with different probabilistic predictions yielding violations of Boole’s “con- V. WHAT PROPOSITIONS SUPPORT WHICH ditions of possible (classical) experience”. PROBABILITIES?

VI. CONTEXTUALITY AS OBJECT CONSTRUCTIONS For comparing probabilities and expectations on proposi- tional structures I maintain that in all such considerations two issues need to be distinguished as separate criteria: As has been mentioned earlier, most investigations into “contextuality” concentrate on the second criterion (ii) and (i) Given some particular type of propositional structure compare discords between classical versus quantum proba- (aka logics); which variety of probability distribution(s) bilistic predictions. Thereby a presumption is an insistence is(are) supported by this propositional structure? that one is only willing to accept classical Boolean proposi- tional structures representable by (power) sets as ontological (ii) Given two or more such varieties of probability distri- entities. butions, exactly what types of probability distributions This presumption is meshed with what Bell claimed to be should be compared with one another? Is this not a true: that “everything has definite properties” [73]. That is, question that needs to be settled for the particular type there is a common belief in “Omni-definiteness”, that any out- of systems dealt with? come of some measurement reflects an “inner property” or “element of physical reality” [74] of the “object” one is pre- I am unaware of any systematic way of answering the first tending to “measure”. No doubts are raised about the con- question (i). One approach, motivated by Gleason-type theo- struction of this “object” which may involve important sig- rems [52–57], is in terms of is Cauchy-type functional equa- nal contributions from the measurement apparatus. Pointedly tions. stated: the very notion of “physical object” [75] – rather than For instance, the same propositional structure may, on the an “imageof ourmind”in the sense of Hertz [76, 77]–maybe one hand, support a classical hidden variable theory based on a naive conception that is inappropriatefor situations in which scalars as well as on (subsets of) a single Boolean algebra, one is dealing with certain types of complementary “observ- while on the other hand, accommodate a quantum interpre- ables” and, in particular, that have no simultaneous value defi- tation based on multi-dimensional vector space entities [58]. niteness [69, 78]. If, for instance, one would also be willing to Take, for example, the Specker bug/cat’s cradle [59–61], or contemplate vectors as fundamental ontological entities, then the house/pentagon/pentagram [62–64] logics: both have a value definiteness ensues as pure states, and arguments based classical interpretation in terms of partitions of the sets of two- on the scarcity or even absence of classical “non-contextual” valued measures [13] as well as a faithful orthogonalrepresen- truth assignments decay into thin air. tation [65, 66] as vectors. But there are also structures that do not allow any global classical probability distribution yet support a vector coor- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS dinatization (aka faithful orthogonal representation). Exam- ples are the Specker bug combo denoted by Γ3 by Kochen This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Aus- and Specker [67] that has a nonseparable set of two-valued trian Science Fund (FWF), Project No. I 4579-N. For the pur- states. In the extreme case there exists no classical truth as- pose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public signment (relative to admissibility; ie, exclusivity and com- copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version pleteness): take, for example, Γ2 [67], or the logics introduced arising from this submission. in Refs. [68, 69]. One “demarcation criterion” is the separa- The author declares no conflict of interest. bility of the observables by two-valued states, as expressed in This paper was stimulated by a discussion on “objectifica- Kochen and Specker’s Theorem 0 [67]. tion” and a respective draft paper [75] of Noson Yanofsky, as Conversely, there exists a plethora of propositional struc- well as by a question raised by Andrei Khrennikovin an email tures [58] that allow a partition logic interpretation, and there- message relating to his recent paper [17]. 5

[1] John Stuard Bell, “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox,” [24] Itamar Pitowsky, “Correlation polytopes their geometry and Physics Physique Fizika 1, 195–200 (1964). complexity,” Mathematical Programming 50, 395–414 (1991). [2] John F. Clauser, Michael A. Horne, Abner Shimony, and [25] Raymond David Travis, The Logic of a Physical Theory, Mas- Richard A. Holt, “Proposed experiment to test local hidden- ter’s thesis, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA variable theories,” Physical Review Letters 23, 880–884 (1969). (1962), Master’s Thesis under the supervision of David J. [3] Eugene P. Wigner, “On hidden variables and quantum mechan- Foulis. ical probabilities,” American Journal of Physics 38, 1005–1009 [26] Richard Joseph Greechie, Orthomodular Lattices, Ph.D. thesis, (1970). University of Florida, Florida, USA (1996). [4] M. Froissart, “Constructive generalization of Bell’s inequali- [27] Matthias Troffaes, “pycddlib is a Python wrapper for Komei ties,” Il Nuovo Cimento B (11, 1971-1996) 64, 241–251 (1981). Fukuda’s cddlib,” (2020), accessed on December 22th, 2020. [5] Anupam Garg and David N. Mermin, “Farkas’s lemma and the [28] Komei Fukuda, “cdd and cddplus homepage, cddlib package nature of reality: Statistical implications of quantum correla- cddlib-094h,” (2000,2017), accessed on July 1st, 2017. tions,” Foundations of Physics 14, 1–39 (1984). [29] T.S. Motzkin, H. Raiffa, G.L. Thompson, and R.M. Thrall, [6] Itamar Pitowsky, “The range of quantum probability,” Journal “The double description method,” in Contributions to theory of of Mathematical Physics 27, 1556–1565 (1986). games, Vol. 2, edited by H.W. Kuhn and A.W.Tucker (Princeton [7] Boris S. Tsirelson, “Some results and problems on quan- University Press, New Jersey, Princeton, NJ, 1953). tum Bell-type inequalities,” Hadronic Journal Supplement 8, [30] Ernst Specker, “Die Logik nicht gleichzeitig entscheidbarer 329–345 (1993). Aussagen,” Dialectica 14, 239–246 (1960), english traslation at [8] Karl Svozil, “What is so special about quantum clicks?” En- https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4537, arXiv:1103.4537. tropy 22, 602 (2020), arXiv:1707.08915. [31] Daniel M. Greenberger, Mike A. Horne, and Anton Zeilinger, [9] Jos Uffink, “Subjective probability and statistical physics,” in “Going beyond Bell’s theorem,” in Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Probabilities in Physics, edited by Claus Beisbart and Stephan Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe, Fundamental Theo- Hartmann (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2011) pp. 25– ries of Physics, Vol. 37, edited by Menas Kafatos (Kluwer Aca- 49. demic Publishers, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1989) pp. [10] Asher Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods (Kluwer 69–72, http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0921. Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993). [32] Daniel M. Greenberger, Mike A. Horne, A. Shimony, and An- [11] Ron Wright, “Generalized urn models,” Foundations of Physics ton Zeilinger, “Bell’s theorem without inequalities,” American 20, 881–903 (1990). Journal of Physics 58, 1131–1143 (1990). [12] Edward F. Moore, “Gedanken-experiments on sequential ma- [33] David N. Mermin, “What’s wrong with these elements of real- chines,” in Automata Studies. (AM-34), edited by C. E. Shan- ity?” Physics Today 43, 9–10 (1990). non and J. McCarthy (Princeton University Press, Princeton, [34] Dik Bouwmeester, Jian-Wei Pan, Matthew Daniell, Harald We- NJ, 1956) pp. 129–153. infurter, and Anton Zeilinger, “Observation of three-photon [13] Karl Svozil, “Logical equivalence between generalized urn greenberger-horne-zeilinger entanglement,” Physical Review models and finite automata,” International Journal of Theoreti- Letters 82, 1345–1349 (1999). cal Physics 44, 745–754 (2005), arXiv:quant-ph/0209136. [35] Jian-Wei Pan, D. Bouwmeester, M. Daniell, H. Weinfurter, and [14] Stefan Filipp and Karl Svozil, “Generalizing Tsirelson’s bound Anton Zeilinger, “Experimental test of quantum nonlocality in on Bell inequalities using a min-max principle,” Physical Re- three-photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger entanglement,” Na- view Letters 93, 130407 (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0403175. ture 403, 515–519 (2000). [15] Patrick Suppes and Mario Zanotti, “When are probabilistic ex- [36] Dave Bacon, “The GHZgame,” (2006), section I of CSE 599d planations possible?” Synthese 48, 191–199 (1981). – Quantum Computing Quantum Entanglement and Bell’s The- [16] T. A. Brody, “The Suppes-Zanotti theorem and the Bell inequal- orem, lecture notes accessed on January 9th, 2021. ities,” Revista Mexicana de F´ısica 35, 170–187 (1989). [37] Karl Svozil, “Revisiting the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger argu- [17] Andrei Khrennikov, “Can there be given any meaning to con- ment in terms of its logical structure, orthogonality, and proba- textuality without incompatibility?” International Journal of bilities,” (2020), arXiv:2006.14623. Theoretical Physics (2020), 10.1007/s10773-020-04666-z. [38] Boris S. Cirel’son (=Tsirel’son), “Quantum generalizations of [18] George Boole, “On the theory of probabilities,” Philosophical Bell’s inequality,” Letters in Mathematical Physics 4, 93–100 Transactions of the Royal Society of London 152, 225–252 (1980). (1862). [39] Itamar Pitowsky and Karl Svozil, “New optimal tests of [19] Itamar Pitowsky, “George Boole’s ‘conditions of possible ex- quantum nonlocality,” Physical Review A 64, 014102 (2001), perience’ and the quantum puzzle,” The British Journal for the arXiv:quant-ph/0011060. Philosophy of Science 45, 95–125 (1994). [40] Cezary Sliwa, “Symmetries of the Bell correlation in- [20] Itamar Pitowsky, Quantum Probability — Quantum Logic, Lec- equalities,” Physics Letters A 317, 165–168 (2003), ture Notes in Physics, Vol. 321 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Hei- arXiv:quant-ph/0305190. delberg, 1989). [41] Daniel Colins and Nicolas Gisin, “A relevant two qbit [21] G¨unter M. Ziegler, Lectures on Polytopes (Springer, New York, Bell inequality inequivalent to the CHSH inequality,” Jour- 1994). nal of Physics A: Math. Gen. 37, 1775–1787 (2004), [22] Alexander Schrijver, Theory of Linear and Integer Program- arXiv:quant-ph/0306129. ming, Wiley Series in Discrete Mathematics & Optimization [42] Ad´an Cabello, “Experimentally testable state-independent (John Wiley & Sons, New York, Toronto, London, 1998). quantum contextuality,” Physical Review Letters 101, 210401 [23] Komei Fukuda, “Frequently asked questions in polyhedral com- (2008), arXiv:0808.2456. putation,” (2014), accessed on July 29th, 2017. [43] Ad´an Cabello, “Converting contextuality into nonlocality,” 6

(2020), arXiv:2011.13790 [quant-ph]. pp. 213–240, arXiv:quant-ph/0510095. [44] Karl Svozil, “Proposed direct test of a certain type of non- [62] E.R.Gerelle, Richard Joseph Greechie, and F.R.Miller, contextuality in quantum mechanics,” Physical Review A 80, “Weights on spaces,” in Physical Reality and Mathematical 040102 (2009). Description, edited by Charles P. Enz and Jagdish Mehra (D. [45] Karl Svozil, “How much contextuality?” Natural Computing Reidel Publishing Company, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 11, 261–265 (2012), arXiv:1103.3980. Holland, 1974) pp. 167–192. [46] Samson Abramsky, Rui Soares Barbosa, and Shane Mansfield, [63] Ron Wright, “The state of the pentagon. A nonclassical exam- “Contextual fraction as a measure of contextuality,” Phys. Rev. ple,” in Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory, edited Lett. 119, 050504 (2017). by A. R. Marlow (Academic Press, New York, 1978) pp. 255– [47] Andrei Khrennikov, “Bohr against Bell: complementarity ver- 274. sus nonlocality,” Open Physics 15, 734–738 (2017). [64] Alexander A. Klyachko, M. Ali Can, Sinem Binicio˘glu, and [48] Janne V. Kujala and Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov, “Measures of con- Alexander S. Shumovsky, “Simple test for hidden variables in textuality and non-contextuality,” Philosophical Transactions of spin-1 systems,” Physical Review Letters 101, 020403 (2008), the Royal Society A. Mathematical, Physical and Engineering arXiv:0706.0126. Sciences 377, 20190149, 16 (2019). [65] L´aszl´oLov´asz, “On the Shannon capacity of a graph,” IEEE [49] Niels Bohr, “Discussion with Einstein on epistemological prob- Transactions on Information Theory 25, 1–7 (1979). lems in atomic physics,” in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scien- [66] L´aszl´oLov´asz, M. Saks, and Alexander Schrijver, “Orthogonal tist, edited by P. A. Schilpp (The Library of Living Philoso- representations and connectivity of graphs,” Linear Algebra and phers, Evanston, Ill., 1949) pp. 200–241. its Applications 114-115, 439–454 (1989), special Issue Dedi- [50] John Stuard Bell, “On the problem of hidden variables in cated to Alan J. Hoffman. quantum mechanics,” Reviews of Modern Physics 38, 447–452 [67] Simon Kochen and Ernst P. Specker, “The problem of hidden (1966). variables in quantum mechanics,” Journal of Mathematics and [51] Karl Svozil, “Quantum information via state partitions and the Mechanics (now Indiana University Mathematics Journal) 17, context translation principle,” Journal of Modern Optics 51, 59–87 (1967). 811–819 (2004), arXiv:quant-ph/0308110. [68] Ad´an Cabello, Jos´e M. Estebaranz, and G. Garc´ıa- [52] Paul Busch, “Quantum states and generalized observables: a Alcaine, “Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem: A proof with simple proof of Gleason’s theorem,” Physical Review Letters 18 vectors,” Physics Letters A 212, 183–187 (1996), 91, 120403, 4 (2003). arXiv:quant-ph/9706009. [53] Carlton M. Caves, Christopher A. Fuchs, Kiran K. Manne, and [69] Alastair A. Abbott, Cristian S. Calude, and Karl Svozil, “A Joseph M. Renes, “Gleason-type derivations of the quantum variant of the Kochen-Specker theorem localising value indefi- probability rule for generalized measurements,” Foundations niteness,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 56, 102201 (2015), of Physics. An International Journal Devoted to the Concep- arXiv:1503.01985. tual Bases and Fundamental Theories of Modern Physics 34, [70] Richard Joseph Greechie, “Orthomodular lattices admitting no 193–209 (2004). states,” Journal of Combinatorial Theory. Series A 10, 119–132 [54] Helena Granstr¨om, Gleason’s theorem, Master’s thesis, Stock- (1971). holm University (2006). [71] Gudrun Kalmbach, Orthomodular Lattices, London Mathemat- [55] Victoria J Wright, Gleason-type theorems and general proba- ical Society Monographs, Vol. 18 (Academic Press, London and bilistic theories, Ph.D. thesis, University of York (2019). New York, 1983). [56] Victoria J Wright and Stefan Weigert, “A gleason-type theo- [72] Alain Bretto, Hypergraph theory, Mathematical Engineering rem for qubits based on mixtures of projective measurements,” (Springer, Cham, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 52, 055301 2013) pp. xiv+119. (2019). [73] Reinhold A. Bertlmann, “Real or not real that is the ques- [57] Victoria J. Wright and Stefan Weigert, “Gleason-type theorems tion ...,” The European Physical Journal H 45, 205–236 (2020), from Cauchy’s Functional Equation,” Foundations of Physics arXiv:2005.08719. 49, 594–606 (2019). [74] Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, “Can [58] Karl Svozil, “Faithful orthogonal representations of graphs quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be consid- from partition logics,” Soft Computing 24, 10239–10245 ered complete?” Physical Review 47, 777–780 (1935). (2020), arXiv:1810.10423. [75] Noson S. Yanofsky, “The mind and the limitations of physics,” [59] Simon Kochen and Ernst P. Specker, “Logical structures arising (2019), preprint, , accessed on January 14, 2021. in quantum theory,” in The Theory of Models, Proceedings of [76] Heinrich Hertz, Prinzipien der Mechanik (Johann Ambrosius the 1963 International Symposium at Berkeley (North Holland, Barth (Arthur Meiner), Leipzig, 1894) mit einem Vorewort von Amsterdam, New York, Oxford, 1965) pp. 177–189, reprinted H. von Helmholtz. in Ref. [79, pp. 209-221]. [77] Heinrich Hertz, The principles of mechanics presented in a new [60] Itamar Pitowsky, “Betting on the outcomes of measurements: a form (MacMillan and Co., Ltd., London and New York, 1899) bayesian theory of quantum probability,” Studies in History and with a foreword by H. von Helmholtz, translated by D. E. Jones Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philoso- and J. T. Walley. phy of Modern Physics 34, 395–414 (2003), quantum Informa- [78] Itamar Pitowsky, “Infinite and finite Gleason’s theorems and the tion and Computation, arXiv:quant-ph/0208121. logic of indeterminacy,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 39, [61] Itamar Pitowsky, “Quantum mechanics as a theory of probabil- 218–228 (1998). ity,” in Physical Theory and its Interpretation, The Western On- [79] Ernst Specker, Selecta (Birkh¨auser Verlag, Basel, 1990). tario Series in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 72, edited by William Demopoulos and Itamar Pitowsky (Springer Netherlands, 2006)