Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:54:48.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

QUANTUM TEAM LOGIC AND BELL’S INEQUALITIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2015

TAPANI HYTTINEN ,
GIANLUCA PAOLINI  and
JOUKO VÄÄNÄNEN
TAPANI HYTTINEN*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Helsinki
GIANLUCA PAOLINI*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Helsinki
JOUKO VÄÄNÄNEN*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Helsinki and University of Amsterdam
*
*DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI FINLAND E-mail: [email protected]
†DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI FINLAND E-mail: [email protected]
‡DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS AND STATISTICS UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI FINLAND and INSTITUTE FOR LOGIC, LANGUAGE AND COMPUTATION UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM THE NETHERLANDS E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A logical approach to Bell’s Inequalities of quantum mechanics has been introduced by Abramsky and Hardy (Abramsky & Hardy, 2012). We point out that the logical Bell’s Inequalities of Abramsky & Hardy (2012) are provable in the probability logic of Fagin, Halpern and Megiddo (Fagin et al., 1990). Since it is now considered empirically established that quantum mechanics violates Bell’s Inequalities, we introduce a modified probability logic, that we call quantum team logic, in which Bell’s Inequalities are not provable, and prove a Completeness theorem for this logic. For this end we generalise the team semantics of dependence logic (Väänänen, 2007) first to probabilistic team semantics, and then to what we call quantum team semantics.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 722 - 742
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAOHY

Abramsky, S., & Brandenburger, A. (2011). The sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextuality. New Journal of Physics, 13, 113036–113075.Google Scholar
Abramsky, S., & Hardy, L. (2012). Logical Bell Inequalities. Physical Review A, 85(062114), 1–11.Google Scholar
Bell, J. S. (1964). On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics, 1, 195–200.Google Scholar
Birkhoff, G., & von Neumann, J. (1936). The logic of quantum mechanics. Annals of Mathematics, 37, 823–843.Google Scholar
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47, 777–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagin, R., Halpern, J. Y., & Megiddo, N. (1990). A logic for reasoning about probabilities. Information and Computation, 87, 78–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. (1965). The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Quantum Mechanics, Vol. 3. Reading, Mass., London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Hyttinen, T., Paolini, G., & Väänänen, J.Measure teams. In preparation.Google Scholar
Väänänen, J. (2007). Dependence Logic. London Mathematical Society Student Texts, Vol. 70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar