Consider the original paper, ON THE EINSTEIN PODOLSKY ROSEN PARADOX by J. S. Bell from which the following quotes are taken: “Since the initial quantum mechanical wave function does not determine the result of an individual measurement, this predetermination implies the possibility of a more complete specification of the state.” In this quote we see that Bell refers to a wave function that is not the result of an individual measurement. However, the wave function was introduced specifically to describe individual measurements by Schroedinger. I have never seen a proof that allows this more loosely defined interpretation. Please correct me if I am wrong by supplying specific references. Bell continues, "Some might prefer a formulation in which the hidden variables fall into two sets, with A dependent on one and B on the other; this possibility is contained in the above, since λ stands for any number of variables and the dependences thereon of A and B are unrestricted. In a complete physical theory of the type envisaged by Einstein, the hidden variables would have dynamical significance and laws of motion; our λ can then be thought of as initial values of these variables at some suitable instant." This is wrong. Einstein never envisaged “a complete physical theory in which hidden variables would have dynamical significance”. He actually referred to quantum mechanics as a touchstone which would have to be derived if a more complete theory is proposed. In fact Bell correctly quotes Einstein as saying the following: "But on one supposition we should, in my opinion, absolutely hold fast: the real factual situation of the system S2 is independent of what is done with the system S1, which is spatially separated from the former." A. Einstein If we hold fast to the Schroedinger interpretation of a wave function then Einstein's quote merely refers to the actual measurements performed by Bob and Alice, not the questionable use of a wave function as referring to unobserved/unobservable systems, systems which come into existence in free space independently of the possibility of measurement. This is clearly a case of erecting a dummy Einstein and then defeating him. The actual mathematics of the EPR paper were given by Podolsky, not Einstein as stated in an earlier post on this forum by a philosophy major.