
#91
Mar1612, 03:27 PM

P: 3,178





#92
Mar1612, 03:41 PM

P: 3,178





#93
Mar1612, 11:04 PM

P: 97

The data shows that the events A and B are dependent not independent, an assumption made by Bell. The P(A)*P(B/A) ≠ P(A)*P(B). Can you exlain how Bell got it right using an invalid assumption? 



#94
Mar1612, 11:49 PM

P: 1,583





#95
Mar1712, 05:04 AM

P: 3,178





#96
Mar1712, 05:17 AM

P: 3,178

PS: I think that Herbert's proof deserves to be a separate topic  it looks really good and no need for a lambda! 



#97
Mar1712, 10:17 PM

P: 1,583





#98
Mar2212, 05:36 AM

P: 3,178




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
The JaynesCummings Hamiltonian  Quantum Physics  2  
Books detailing Bell's inequality derivation  Quantum Physics  3  
Statistical physics/mechanics book in the spirit of Jaynes  Science & Math Textbook Listings  0  
Socks. So many uncomfortable socks. What do you wear?  General Discussion  12  
E.T. Jaynes  General Physics  4 