Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    The Gleason-type argument derives restrictions on value a... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The Gleason-type argument tacitly assumes noncontextuality.

    The Gleason-type argument derives restrictions on value assignments only for sets of compatible observables.

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Skepticism2 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    One and the same observable can belong to different commuting sets.Requiring the same value across different commuting contexts is an assumption of...The Gleason-type argument tacitly assumes noncontextuality.The argument requires that the observable receives the same value regardless of ...

    Similar

    The argument requires that the observable receives the same value rega...79%This restriction to values is consistent with the possibility that Pyr...77%The Completeness Theorem is applicable only when a semantic argument w...75%Condition (3) need only hold for compatible observables (those jointly...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: kochen-specker
    View source passageHide passage
    After having offered his variant of the argument against HV theories from Gleason’s theorem, Bell proceeds to criticise it. His strategy parallels the one against von Neumann. Bell points out that his own Gleason-type argument against arbitrary closeness of two opposite-valued points presupposes non-trivial relations between values of non-commuting observables, which are only justified given an assumption of noncontextuality (NC). He proposes as an analysis of what went wrong that his own argume

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective