In the paper “Super-Quantum Correlations: A Necessary Clarification” by Uzan <a href="#ref1">[1]</a>, it is suggested that stronger than quantum (or supra-quantum) correlations are not possible...In the paper “Super-Quantum Correlations: A Necessary Clarification” by Uzan <a href="#ref1">[1]</a>, it is suggested that stronger than quantum (or supra-quantum) correlations are not possible. The main point of Uzan’s argumentation is the belief that the intuitive definition of No-Signalling (<em>NS</em>) is different from the statistical definition of No-Signalling (<em>NS</em><em><sub>stat</sub></em>), and that situations exist where <em>NS<sub>stat</sub></em> is respected while <em>NS</em> isn’t. In this paper we show why these definitions are one and the same, and where the example from the original paper breaks down. We provide a broader context to help the reader understand intuitively the situation.展开更多
文摘In the paper “Super-Quantum Correlations: A Necessary Clarification” by Uzan <a href="#ref1">[1]</a>, it is suggested that stronger than quantum (or supra-quantum) correlations are not possible. The main point of Uzan’s argumentation is the belief that the intuitive definition of No-Signalling (<em>NS</em>) is different from the statistical definition of No-Signalling (<em>NS</em><em><sub>stat</sub></em>), and that situations exist where <em>NS<sub>stat</sub></em> is respected while <em>NS</em> isn’t. In this paper we show why these definitions are one and the same, and where the example from the original paper breaks down. We provide a broader context to help the reader understand intuitively the situation.
