9941c5f0   
   From: mikko.levanto@outlook.com   
      
   In article ,   
    SEKI  wrote:   
      
   > On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 11:51:42 PM UTC+9, Jos Bergervoet wrote:   
   > >   
   > > There is no paradox in Bell's inequality. It can be proven with   
   > > mathematical rigor without any problem.   
      
   > Are you sure?   
   > Please explain concretely or show me background materials to refer.   
      
   In order to understand more about the situation you should work out some   
   problems yourself. Here is one:   
      
       There are some random variables A, B, C. The probability that A and   
       B are different is p and the probability that B and C are different   
       is q. All probabilities are real numbers between 0 and 1.   
       This information is insufficient to determine the probability that A   
       and C are different but it allows to infer some limits to that   
       probability. What are those limits?   
      
   The result is not Bell's inequality but it can be used for similar   
   purposes. In particular, the result can be used instead of Bell's   
   inequality to show that no local hidden variable theory is equivalent   
   to quantum mechanics.   
      
   Some background material:   
      
       http://cds.cern.ch/record/111654/files/vol1p195-200_001.pdf   
       http://users.unimi.it/aqm/wp-content/uploads/CHSH.pdf   
       http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Negative_Probabilities.htm   
       http://www.drchinese.com/David/Aspect.pdf   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)