Quick Navigation

Topics

Open Quantum Systems Decoherence Quantum Simulation Quantum State Preparation Representation Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations

Bell-type inequalities for bivariate maps on orthomodular lattices

arXiv
Authors: Jarosław Pykacz, Lubica Valaskova, Olga Nanasiova

Year

2014

Paper ID

47555

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

127

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Bell-type inequalities on orthomodular lattices, in which conjunctions of propositions are not modeled by meets but by maps for simultaneous measurements (s-maps), are studied. It is shown that the most simple of these inequalities, that involves only two propositions, is always satisfied, contrary to what happens in the case of traditional version of this inequality in which conjunctions of propositions are modeled by meets. Equivalence of various Bell-type inequalities formulated with the aid of bivariate maps on orthomodular lattices is studied. Our invesigations shed new light on the interpretation of various multivariate maps defined on orthomodular lattices already studied in the literature. The paper is concluded by showing the possibility of using s-maps and j-maps to represent counterfactual conjunctions and disjunctions of non-compatible propositions about quantum systems.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #47555 #67310 Women for Quantum -- Manifesto ... #67301 Daemonic quantum battery charge... #67361 The Channel Capacity of a Relat... #67349 Spectral radii for subsets of H...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.