FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 1:26 pm
Sorry, lambda can't be anything. It can't be a "factor that is accounted for in the standard quantum mechanics framework."
So, not really a precise mathematical definition.
As I said, lambda can be anything you like. Its formal role is precisely defined in my paper and has been well understood since the earliest days of work on hidden variable theories. My paper is not about a constrictive model --- like the 3-sphere model, but about formal aspects of any hidden variable theories.
.
FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 1:26 pm
Sorry, lambda can't be anything. It can't be a "factor that is accounted for in the standard quantum mechanics framework."
So, not really a precise mathematical definition.
As I said, lambda can be anything you like. ...
And that would be manifestly wrong! I think we found your problem.
.
FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Tue Sep 03, 2024 1:26 pm
Sorry, lambda can't be anything. It can't be a "factor that is accounted for in the standard quantum mechanics framework."
So, not really a precise mathematical definition.
As I said, lambda can be anything you like. ...
And that would be manifestly wrong! I think we found your problem.
.
What problem? There is no problem. What you don't understand cannot be my problem.
The real problem here is that you do not understand the simple fact that what is presented in my paper is a formal, well-known, well-understood, general framework of hidden variable theories that has been established and accepted since 1932 after the works of great scholars like von Neumann, Bohm, Bell, Gudder, Kochen and Specker, and many others. The problem is that you are failing to understand the simple fact that this formal framework is not the same thing as a specific constructive model in which lambda is then fixed to be something specific, as in the 3-sphere model. Why is this difficult to understand?
.
