Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Bell (1966)
On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum MechanicsReviews of Modern Physics, 38
S. Kochen (1967)
Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17
R. V. Kadison, J. R. Ringrose (1983)
Fundamentals of theTheory of Operator Algebras Vol. 1: Elementary Theory
Acknowledgements Chris Isham gratefully acknowledges support by the EPSRC grant GR/R36572. Jeremy Butterfield thanks Hans Halvorson for very helpful discussions
C. Isham, J. Butterfield (1998)
Topos Perspective on the Kochen-Specker Theorem: I. Quantum States as Generalized ValuationsInternational Journal of Theoretical Physics, 37
J. Butterfield (2000)
Topos Theory as a Framework for Partial Truth
The requirement that a defines a 'tight' subobject of Σ
P. Vermaas (2000)
A Philosopher's Understanding of Quantum Mechanics
R. Kadison, J. Ringrose (1983)
Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebras
But again the conclusion-that taking R as subsethood in these schemas is sufficient for these propertiesreflects the correspondence in Section 3 between sieve-valued and intervalvalued valuations
S. Kochen, E. P. Specker (1967)
The problem of hiddenvariables in quantum mechanicsJournal of Mathematics and Mechanics, 17
J. Hamilton, C. Isham, J. Butterfield (1999)
Topos Perspective on the Kochen=nSpeckerTheorem: III. Von Neumann Algebras as theBase CategoryInternational Journal of Theoretical Physics, 39
The analogue of the proviso above
3) for all bounded Borel functions f and allÂ, we have the equality f (σ(Â)) = σ(f (Â)) (as always occurs if has pure discrete spectrum), not merely f (σ(Â)) ⊆ σ(f (Â)) as in Eq
Jozef Uffink (2001)
review of P. Vermaas, A Philosopher's Understanding of Quantum Mechanics, 93
P. Vermaas (2000)
A Philosopher's Understanding of QuantumMechanics
J. Butterfield, C. Isham (1998)
A Topos Perspective on the Kochen-Specker Theorem II. Conceptual Aspects and Classical AnaloguesInternational Journal of Theoretical Physics, 38
We extend the topos-theoretic treatment given in previous papers (Butterfield, J. and Isham, C. J. (1999). International Journal of Theoretical Physics 38, 827–859; Hamilton, J., Butterfield, J., and Isham, C. J. (2000). International Journal of Theoretical Physics 39, 1413–1436; Isham, C. J. and Butterfield, J. (1998). International Journal of Theoretical Physics 37, 2669–2733) of assigning values to quantities in quantum theory. In those papers, the main idea was to assign a sieve as a partial and contextual truth value to a proposition that the value of a quantity lies in a certain set $$\Delta \subseteq \mathbb{R}$$ . Here we relate such sieve-valued valuations to valuations that assign to quantities subsets, rather than single elements, of their spectra (we call these “interval” valuations). There are two main results. First, there is a natural correspondence between these two kinds of valuation, which uses the notion of a state's support for a quantity (Section 3). Second, if one starts with a more general notion of interval valuation, one sees that our interval valuations based on the notion of support (and correspondingly, our sieve-valued valuations) are a simple way to secure certain natural properties of valuations, such as monotonicity (Section 4).
International Journal of Theoretical Physics – Springer Journals
Published: Sep 30, 2004
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.