A Constructive Proof of Gleason’s Theorem (1999)

by Fred Richman , Douglas Bridges
Venue:J. Func. Anal
Citations:12 - 2 self

Documents Related by Co-Citation

157 Measures on the Closed Subspaces of a Hilbert space – A Gleason - 1967
7 Gleason’s theorem is not constructively provable – G Hellman - 1993
401 Vulnerabilities Analysis – Matt Bishop - 1999
224 The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics – S Kochen, E P Specker - 1967
8 A constructive look at positive linear functionals on L(H – D Bridges - 1981
54 D: ‘Constructive Analysis’, Grundlehren der math – E Bishop, Bridges - 1985
7 Constructive mathematics and quantum mechanics: unbounded operators and the spectral theorem – G Hellman
3 Gleason’s theorem has a constructive proof – F Richman
12 Is quantum theory universally valid – A Peres, W H Zurek - 1982
4 Indeterminacy Before Heisenberg: The Case of Franz Exner and Erwin Schrödinger – P A Hanle - 1979
3 think the Physics Today article is a nice opportunity and we should run with it if we get a chance. Too many of our close colleagues are going the wayside: our efforts may not change their opinions, but we may help suppress the snowballing effect with you – I - 1999
3 A Sunday the Way I Like to Spend It” Today I had the chance to do a little work around the house, take Emma and the dogs to the park, listen to the morning jazz show on the radio, and, in between, to read two papers. Now this is the way I like to spend a – Howard Barnum, Charlie Bennett, John - 1999
3 I agree with you completely on this. (Don’t let my words above lead you to think that I’ll come out swinging a battle axe for RBG – My
3 rearranged this sentence somewhat so that it read better for me. But I am not sure that I completely agree with what you are thinking here, so let me withhold complete judgement until a later draft. The main problem is this. Take the information–disturban – I Comment
3 on the other hand, it is ignored, there exists a bet leading to a sure loss even in the single trial. This I believe is the best, clearest, and most famous “operational” definition for probability within the Bayesian approach, and is why I always say to y – Comment If - 1980
3 Airport Time” I’m waiting at the Albuquerque airport for my mom and stepfather to arrive. They’ll be staying with us until Friday when I depart for Naples and they depart back to Texas. This is only my mom’s fourth flight ever so, and she dreads flying li – R Cooke, M Keane, W Moran - 1999
3 Even Gleason’s original paper did not assume continuity of the frame functions: it proved it. The most difficult part of the theorem is proving continuity: it turns out to just be a wonderful property of R 3 (the reals in 3-D). Meyer’s example on rational – Phys - 1998
3 don’t we just try it without the phrase “(that is, potentially observable properties)?” The thing I’m having trouble with is the word “properties”—I no longer think of quantum systems as having properties independent of our interventions. You made the mis – Comment Why
3 Fear of Numbers” Please don’t be frightened by the Annotated Toddler. Despite the number (and size) of footnotes, I think we are reaching rapid convergence. I think essentially everything is now stable (at the very least readily negotiable) except the par – Emma Kiki - 1999