Jump to content

Talk:Bell's theorem: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Bell's theorem/Archive 10) (bot
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Bell's theorem/Archive 10) (bot
Tag: Replaced
Line 16: Line 16:
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
}}
== violation of a Bell inequality cannot be interpreted as a proof of non-locality. ==

The article cites:
* {{Cite book|first1=Harvey R. |last1=Brown |author-link1=Harvey R. Brown |first2 = Christopher G. |last2=Timpson|chapter=Bell on Bell's Theorem: The Changing Face of Nonlocality|title=Quantum Nonlocality and Reality: 50 years of Bell's theorem |editor-first1=Mary |editor-last1=Bell |editor-first2=Shan |editor-last2=Gao |publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2016|pages = 91–123|arxiv=1501.03521|doi=10.1017/CBO9781316219393.008|isbn = 9781316219393|s2cid = 118686956}}
when it says:
* "Therefore, the violation of a Bell inequality cannot be interpreted as a proof of non-locality."

The ref is a cited but unpublished arxiv article. But it does not support the current content and the current content does not make sense anyway. The question we should address is "how does Bell theorem impact MWI?"

I added a quote to the ref to support a change to the sentence. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 16:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

:Well I am trying to make sense of this section but it is tough sledding. The first paragraph ends with:
:* "Therefore, a violation of a Bell inequality can be interpreted as a demonstration that measurements have multiple outcomes."
:citing
:* {{cite journal |first1=David |last1=Deutsch |author-link1=David Deutsch |first2=Patrick |last2=Hayden |author-link2=Patrick Hayden (scientist) |title=Information flow in entangled quantum systems |journal=[[Proceedings of the Royal Society A]] |date=2000 |volume=456 |issue=1999 |pages=1759–1774 |doi=10.1098/rspa.2000.0585|arxiv=quant-ph/9906007|bibcode=2000RSPSA.456.1759D |s2cid=13998168 }}
:The paper does not claim that Bell tests demonstrate multiple outcomes as implied. Obviously that would be news. In fact the section of the cited article is called "Irrelevance of Bell’s theorem". [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::In addition to these issues, the Deutsch/Hayden paper is not about Many-Worlds interpretation or any other interpretation for that matter. It does discuss locality and Bell's theorem so it may have a role in some other part of the article. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 20:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
:I changed both paragraphs to match what I read in the refs. In both cases I removed concluding sentences that implied consequences beyond what the refs say. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
::If you can't understand the paper then don't vandalize Wikipedia. I understood the paper and I wrote that part. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 21:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I understood the papers. I do not agree with the summary you wrote.
:::Two specific claims were made as I described above. Neither paper justifies those claims.
:::I'll go over the discussion I already made above, I guess in more detail.
:::* "Therefore, the violation of a Bell inequality cannot be interpreted as a proof of non-locality."
:::What is the point of this claim here? It has nothing to do with MWI. It is an assertion of a well-known issue with Bell's proof, or any proof for that matter: if your application does not include the preconditions for the proof, the results need not apply. MWI does not satisfy the separability or uniqueness of outcomes required by Bell. The point of the Brown-Timpson paper is that even MWI does not satisfy the preconditions for Bell, MWI still has something interesting to say about Bell. That is what our article should get across.
:::* "Therefore, a violation of a Bell inequality can be interpreted as a demonstration that measurements have multiple outcomes."
:::This statement is either obvious -- you can't have correlation without multiple possible outcomes -- or an extrapolation -- no one believes that Bell correlations prove MWI. So I assume that you meant something else, but what I don't know. I did not see anything like this in the ref, but maybe you did.
:::@[[User:Tercer|Tercer]] I am asking you to respond to my comments above. I hope you will go back and read my version. I think it fairly represents Bell/MWI and the refs. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 22:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
:::: I favor deleting the whole section as confusing and incorrect. Bell's theorem does not even apply to the MWI. [[User:Schlafly|Roger]] ([[User talk:Schlafly|talk]]) 02:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think we could have a useful section that explains ''why'' Bell's theorem does not apply to MWI and ''how'' MWI explains the observed correlations. That was the intent of my now-reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bell%27s_theorem&oldid=1221904167#Many-worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics revision]. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 02:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
::::: It just takes a sentence. Bell assumes that experiments have unique outcomes. MWI does not. There is no way to reconcile MWI with Bell's work. [[User:Schlafly|Roger]] ([[User talk:Schlafly|talk]]) 03:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::How about the following sentence-ish then:
::::::* The results of Bell's theorem follow when a system is separable and has single outcomes, but the Multiple-worlds interpretation is not separable and has multiple outcomes.<ref name=BrownTimpson>{{Cite book|first1=Harvey R. |last1=Brown |author-link1=Harvey R. Brown |first2 = Christopher G. |last2=Timpson|chapter=Bell on Bell's Theorem: The Changing Face of Nonlocality|title=Quantum Nonlocality and Reality: 50 years of Bell's theorem |editor-first1=Mary |editor-last1=Bell |editor-first2=Shan |editor-last2=Gao |publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2016|pages = 91–123|arxiv=1501.03521|doi=10.1017/CBO9781316219393.008|isbn = 9781316219393|s2cid = 118686956}}</ref>{{rp|28|q=Everettian quantum mechanics exploits both non-uniqueness of outcomes and non-separability in accounting for EPR and Bell correlations without action-at-a-distance.}} Thus the theorem does not apply.
::::::[[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::That's of course unacceptable. You are removing all the interesting information, and additionally misnaming the Many-Worlds interpretation. There's also no "separability" assumption in Bell's theorem. You really should stop editing articles you don't understand. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 19:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Please offer a single sentence alternative if you like. Since you won't defend your content and you won't agree to mine, the only other alternative unless someone else comes along is to delete the section altogether. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 20:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::That's not how Wikipedia works. You need to get consensus for your changes, you don't get to just delete content you don't like. And I did defend my content, even provided a quotation for you. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 08:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Once again, this is an incorrect understanding of core Wikipedia policies, as the [[WP:BURDEN|burden]] is on the person wanting to add content to establish consensus that it is verifiable, and not on the skeptics. You can escalate this further and poll for further input, but the proper state of the article sans consensus is for the passage's omission since no one agrees on any common ground. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I am not proposing to add content. It has been there for years. And yes you do need consensus for deleting content. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 09:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::No, the core issue is verifiability. Longevity is a weak form of consensus in itself barring actual discussion, but if editors find there is an explicit lack of consensus that content is verifiable then it should likely not be retained barring further input. Unfortunately, if there's someone here who does not understand the paper it is yours truly (I gave it a shot!), do you think asking [[WP:WikiProject Physics|WikiProject Physics]] may help? [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 10:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Tercer|Tercer]] said
::::::::::* "And I did defend my content, even provided a quotation for you."
::::::::::I apologize, I missed your reply because it was followed by a lot of other stuff. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 15:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
::::You were the one who said you didn't understand Deutsch's paper. As is clearly the case. Editing Wikipedia is not about copy-pasting sentences from the references, it's about understanding and summarizing them. The "irrelevance" of Bell's theorem is as an argument against the locality of the theory they are describing, which is a separable version of Many-Worlds. Section 7 proves that if you add the single-outcome assumption to Many-Worlds you get Bell's theorem. Try to read and understand it, it's less than three pages. Its end is rather explicit: {{tq|It is hardly surprising that assigning a single-valued (albeit stochastic) variable to a physical quantity whose true descriptor is a matrix, soon leads to inconsistency}}.
::::As for the Brown-Timpson paper, they are quite explicit that they are demonstrating how a dynamically local theory can violate Bell inequalities. I find incomprehensible how you could claim that this has nothing to do with MWI, or that it doesn't belong in an article about Bell's theorem. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 09:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{talk quote|You were the one who said you didn't understand Deutsch's paper. As is clearly the case.}}
:::::At no point did they say this. However, your tone so far has been unacceptable. It's also a bit puzzling to accuse someone of not understanding what they are reading or its context, and then call their actions [[WP:VANDALISM|vandalism, when it was simply not the case]]. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 09:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::He wrote it explicitly: {{tq|Well I am trying to make sense of this section but it is tough sledding}}. And editing an article you know you don't understand is simply vandalism. [[WP:CIR]]. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 10:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It it pretty clear that he was speaking about trying to understand the section of the article where the Deutsch paper was cited, not the paper itself.
:::::::Not to have a sidebar about site policy, but it's telling you've cited an essay that doesn't mention the word vandalism, while the actual vandalism policy repeats itself endlessly that [[WP:NOTV|exactly what you describe is not vandalism]]. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 10:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Fair enough, it's not "vandalism" according to the Wikipedia definition of the term. It's ill-advised, inconsiderate, arrogant, and unacceptable. Happy now? Or are you going to link more policies defining these terms in some way that excludes the intended meaning? More importantly, do you seriously think people should edit articles they don't understand?
::::::::As for his quotation, perhaps he indeed meant the Wikipedia section, I apologize if I was indeed mistaken. It doesn't change the fact that he clearly didn't understand the papers. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 10:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::It's written there for a reason, as it is the generally-understood meaning of the term on Wikipedia, but I'm glad I could clarify in any case. [[User:Remsense|<span style="border-radius:2px 0 0 2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F;color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]][[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="border:1px solid #1E816F;border-radius:0 2px 2px 0;padding:1px 3px;color:#000">诉</span>]] 11:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I quoted the Wikipedia section so that is obviously what I meant. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 15:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thank you for your comments. Please skip the personal attacks.
:::::The Deutsch/Hayden paper is indeed short and about Bell's theorem. However it says nothing about interpretation or MWI. Consequently the claim that:
:::::* In fact, Bell's theorem can be proven in the Many-Worlds framework from the assumption that a measurement has a single outcome.
:::::is not supported by the ref. More important, the conclusion:
:::::* Therefore, a violation of a Bell inequality can be interpreted as a demonstration that measurements have multiple outcomes.
:::::is not in that ref at all. Your opinion about the its application to MWI maybe 100% correct, but that's not relevant for Wikipedia.
:::::I agree with you on the Brown-Timpson paper but that is not what is written in the article. It says:
:::::* At this point we can say that the Bell correlation starts existing, but it was produced by a purely local mechanism. Therefore, the violation of a Bell inequality cannot be interpreted as a proof of non-locality.
:::::The first sentence reads as if the local mechanism occurs at the instant the "Bell correlations start existing" and that description itself is confusing. The second sentence is a strong conclusion not supported by the ref. There are plenty of other papers that discuss that conclusion, but its position here is misleading as it makes it sound like a result of MWI.
:::::My version is not very different from yours. The most important differences are the removal of two sentences of conclusions unsupported by the refs. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 15:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::The Deutsch-Hayden paper is neither short nor about Bell's theorem. It's about developing an explicitly separable formulation of Many-Worlds. At first sight such a project should be impossible because of Bell's theorem, so they included a section showing that Bell's theorem follows from adding the assumption that measurements have single outcomes.
::::::As for the Brown-Timpson paper, of course it supports the conclusion. You even added an appropriate quotation to the article yourself: {{tq|In our discussion of locality in the Everett interpretation we have sought to provide a constructive example illustrating precisely how a theory can be dynamically local, whilst violating local causality}}. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 17:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The Deutsch-Hayden paper cited in the article is:
:::::::* {{cite journal |first1=David |last1=Deutsch |author-link1=David Deutsch |first2=Patrick |last2=Hayden |author-link2=Patrick Hayden (scientist) |title=Information flow in entangled quantum systems |journal=[[Proceedings of the Royal Society A]] |date=2000 |volume=456 |issue=1999 |pages=1759–1774 |doi=10.1098/rspa.2000.0585|arxiv=quant-ph/9906007|bibcode=2000RSPSA.456.1759D |s2cid=13998168 }}
:::::::It says nothing about Many-Worlds.
:::::::The quote from the Brown-Timpson paper:
:::::::* In our discussion of locality in the Everett interpretation we have sought to provide a constructive example illustrating precisely how a theory can be dynamically local, whilst violating local causality.
:::::::does not support the claim in the article:
:::::::* At this point we can say that the Bell correlation starts existing, but it was produced by a purely local mechanism. Therefore, the violation of a Bell inequality cannot be interpreted as a proof of non-locality.
:::::::The quote does support MWI being dynamically local as both of our version claim.
:::::::This quote from Brown-Timpson illustrates part of complexity of concept of "locality" by using two different modified forms in the same sentence. As there are entire articles on that topic, I selected a different quote in my second revision:
:::::::* Everettian quantum mechanics exploits both non-uniqueness of outcomes and non-separability in accounting for EPR and Bell correlations without action-at-a-distance.
:::::::I think this captures the MWI-Bell Theorem relationship concisely without bring up the time when correlations "start existing" or using the complex and poorly defined words "local" and "non-local".
:::::::If I understand you, you think my version is correct but missing important content about the relationship between MWI and Bell. I don't agree that the additions are about MWI and they are not clear in their current form. Notable additions to wikipedia have multiple sources, esp including secondary refs. Here we have one primary refs not about MWI and one secondary ref. I hope you will accept my version as a reasonable summary given the limited sources. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 18:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The entire Deutsch-Hayden paper is about Many-Worlds.
::::::::The question of when the correlations start existing is central to the question of locality, and Brown and Timpson discuss it at length. For instance: {{tq|That is, we can only think of the correlations between measurement outcomes on the two sides of the experiment actually obtaining in the overlap of the future light-cones of the measurement events—they do not obtain before then and—a fortiori— they do not obtain instantaneously.}} And no, we're not going to avoid mentioning locality or when the correlations start existing here. The reader is supposed to actually understand what we're talking about, replacing familiar words with impenetrable jargon does not help at all.
::::::::The sources are not at all "limited", and your inability to understand them doesn't justify mutilating the article. [[User:Tercer|Tercer]] ([[User talk:Tercer|talk]]) 08:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Well I suppose that someone who believes in MWI believes every paper and every observation about QM is about MWI. Of course the correlation can only be discussed when the observations are compared, but again this has nothing to do with MWI.
:::::::::I'll drop my objection since the section is trivial and I don't think anyone cares about MWI anyway. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
{{reflisttalk}}

I suggest deleting the whole section on many-worlds. Bell assumes single outcomes. MWI assumes the opposite. They have nothing to do with each other. [[User:Schlafly|Roger]] ([[User talk:Schlafly|talk]]) 01:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

== Unverified addition to the article. ==

The article contains this claim:
* which is to say that somehow the two particles are able to interact instantaneously no matter how widely they ever become separated.
with two references.
* {{cite book | first = Sybil B. | last = Parker | title = McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia of Physics | edition = 2nd | page = [https://archive.org/details/mcgrawhillencycl1993park/page/542 542] | date = 1994 | publisher = McGraw-Hill | isbn = 978-0-07-051400-3 | url = https://archive.org/details/mcgrawhillencycl1993park| url-access = registration }}
* {{cite journal | last = Mermin |first = N. David |author-link=N. David Mermin |title = Hidden Variables and the Two Theorems of John Bell | journal = [[Reviews of Modern Physics]] | volume = 65 |pages = 803–815 | number = 3| date = July 1993 | url = http://cqi.inf.usi.ch/qic/Mermin1993.pdf |arxiv=1802.10119 |doi = 10.1103/RevModPhys.65.803 |bibcode = 1993RvMP...65..803M |s2cid = 119546199 }}
Neither reference says anything like this claim. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bell%27s_theorem&diff=prev&oldid=1222201516 removed the unverified phrase] but @[[User:Tercer|Tercer]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bell%27s_theorem&diff=next&oldid=1222201516 reverted] it. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 20:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

:It seems in line with section 9 of Mermin's review. More generally, I'm not sure what the problem is here. Isn't that what ''nonlocal'' means in this context &mdash; influences at the level of the hidden variables that do not diminish with distance and are not limited by the speed of light? I'm not really a fan of the intro as it stands (the second paragraph seems long, in particular), but the quoted claim looks OK for an intro-level gloss on the term ''nonlocal.'' Am I missing something? [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 23:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks for your reply. Section 9 concerns Bohm mechanics and I assume the sentence you are referring to is:
::* If two particles are in a correlated state then, because the field guiding the second particle depends on the trajectory of the first, if a field is suddenly turned on in a region where the first particle happens to be, the subsequent motion of the second particle can be drastically altered in a manner that does not diminish with the distance between the two particles.
::To me this description is very different from the article. The phrase implies pairwise interaction: "two particles are able to interact", but the Bohm mechanism described by Mermin requires the guiding field.
::The phrase says "interact instantaneous" but Mermin speaks of the instantaneous position of all the other particles:
::* The wave function guides the particles like this: each particle obeys a first-order equation of motion specifying that its velocity is proportional to the gradient with respect to its position coordinates of the phase of the N-particle wave function, evaluated atthe instantaneous positions of all the other particles
::The phrase may make sense to an expert who imagines the Bohm concept hidden behind the words and understand the many problems with that model. When I read the phrase it sounds exactly like a description of Newtonian gravity. That is what lead me to read the refs. The phrase makes it sound like the conditions imposed by Bell's theorem are not difficult to evade. I do not agree that this summarizes the Mermin article (and nothing in the other ref applies at all).
::Also notice that the phrase is completely different than "Non-local hidden variables" section. That section makes the complexity of the problem much clearer. So the phrase does not summarize the article content in my opinion. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 02:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Sorry, I'm still confused about what the problem is. For one thing, Einstein ''did'' have to modify Newtonian gravity to make it respect the speed of light. Second, whether or not a "guiding field" is involved doesn't seem relevant at this level of detail. Nor am I clear on what in the "Non-local hidden variables" subsection is not being summarized fairly. It seems about as good a summary as one can hope to do in half a sentence. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 00:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Ok then, thanks for your consideration of my complaint. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 02:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

== EPR on lead ==
== EPR on lead ==


Revision as of 13:37, 10 August 2024

EPR on lead

I think Nuretok has a point in the edit that XOR'easter reverted. The sentence is correct, but not helpful. But the more fundamental problem is that the lead is going into detail about a result that inspired Bell. Even if the detail was about Bell's theorem itself it wouldn't belong in the lead. Details about EPR are right out. To compound the issue the lead is already extremely long. Therefore I removed all mentions to EPR from there. It's already discussed in the History section, and that's where it belongs.

This also opens space for mentioning the variations of Bell's theorem that Ianjauslin wanted to include last year. I think that's much more relevant than historical background. Tercer (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been wanting to shorten the lede for a while now, so that seems like a good move. One could maybe make a case that EPR ought to be mentioned up top, but we definitely had too much on it, and I am content with leaving it out as is done presently. XOR'easter (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the intro was too long and we don't need all the history jammed in there, EPR->Bell's theorem is one of the most significant historical connections in QM. Per our general guidelines to summarize in the intro, a sentence related to EPR is due. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to mention it, as opposed to explain it, but I'm not going to do it myself.
Encouraged by your comments I went a bit further in shortening the lead, eliminating what I think was just repetition. Tercer (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bell%27s_theorem&oldid=1239622197"