http://math.andrej.com/2008/12/03/a-comment-about-mathematical-undecidability-and-quantum-randomness-by-tomasz-paterek-et-al/ Mathematics for computers Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:14:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://math.andrej.com/2008/12/03/a-comment-about-mathematical-undecidability-and-quantum-randomness-by-tomasz-paterek-et-al/comment-page-1/#comment-12624 Steve Faulkner Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:25:35 +0000 http://math.andrej.com/?p=142#comment-12624 If the Paterek et al. paper interests you, you may find interesting undecidability I have found in the quantum formalism itself. This derives from a logical excluded middle under the Field Axioms and relates to scalars whose logical status are distinct. Some scalars exist as theorems of the Field Axioms, others merely satisfy them. Model Theory proves the undecidability. It then propagates fully throughout a theoremology indicative of causelogy in Nature that explains the "causal anomalies" of Quantum Physics. Some details are in my blog. If the Paterek et al. paper interests you, you may find interesting undecidability I have found in the quantum formalism itself. This derives from a logical excluded middle under the Field Axioms and relates to scalars whose logical status are distinct. Some scalars exist as theorems of the Field Axioms, others merely satisfy them. Model Theory proves the undecidability. It then propagates fully throughout a theoremology indicative of causelogy in Nature that explains the “causal anomalies” of Quantum Physics. Some details are in my blog.

]]> http://math.andrej.com/2008/12/03/a-comment-about-mathematical-undecidability-and-quantum-randomness-by-tomasz-paterek-et-al/comment-page-1/#comment-10933 sigfpe Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:36:01 +0000 http://math.andrej.com/?p=142#comment-10933 I'm having trouble seeing the non-trivial content of this paper. Associated to quantum systems there is an obvious notion of physical statements that are definitely true or false, or neither (ie. statements that are, or are not, eigenvectors of some measurement). In an axiom system we have provably true or false, or undecidable. Is it a big surprise that we can encode some simple examples of the latter into the former? I’m having trouble seeing the non-trivial content of this paper. Associated to quantum systems there is an obvious notion of physical statements that are definitely true or false, or neither (ie. statements that are, or are not, eigenvectors of some measurement). In an axiom system we have provably true or false, or undecidable. Is it a big surprise that we can encode some simple examples of the latter into the former?

]]>