Bell nonlocality and conditional independence
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I've been working through the paper Bell nonlocality by Brunner et al. after seeing it in user glS' answer here. Early on in the paper, the standard Bell experimental setup is defined:
Where $x, y in {0,1}$, $a, b in {-1, 1}$, and the two people (Alice & Bob) measure a shared quantum system generated by $S$ according to their indepedent inputs $x$ and $y$, outputting the results as $a$ and $b$.
The paper then has the following equation:
$P(ab|xy) ne P(a|x)P(b|y)$
And claims the fact this is an inequality means the two sides are not statistically independent. It's been a long time since I took probability & statistics in university, so I'm interested in this equation, what it means, and why it is a test for statistical independence. Why is this equation used, and what is the intuitive meaning of each side? I have basic knowledge of conditional probability and Bayes' theorem.
mathematics quantum-correlation
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I've been working through the paper Bell nonlocality by Brunner et al. after seeing it in user glS' answer here. Early on in the paper, the standard Bell experimental setup is defined:
Where $x, y in {0,1}$, $a, b in {-1, 1}$, and the two people (Alice & Bob) measure a shared quantum system generated by $S$ according to their indepedent inputs $x$ and $y$, outputting the results as $a$ and $b$.
The paper then has the following equation:
$P(ab|xy) ne P(a|x)P(b|y)$
And claims the fact this is an inequality means the two sides are not statistically independent. It's been a long time since I took probability & statistics in university, so I'm interested in this equation, what it means, and why it is a test for statistical independence. Why is this equation used, and what is the intuitive meaning of each side? I have basic knowledge of conditional probability and Bayes' theorem.
mathematics quantum-correlation
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
I've been working through the paper Bell nonlocality by Brunner et al. after seeing it in user glS' answer here. Early on in the paper, the standard Bell experimental setup is defined:
Where $x, y in {0,1}$, $a, b in {-1, 1}$, and the two people (Alice & Bob) measure a shared quantum system generated by $S$ according to their indepedent inputs $x$ and $y$, outputting the results as $a$ and $b$.
The paper then has the following equation:
$P(ab|xy) ne P(a|x)P(b|y)$
And claims the fact this is an inequality means the two sides are not statistically independent. It's been a long time since I took probability & statistics in university, so I'm interested in this equation, what it means, and why it is a test for statistical independence. Why is this equation used, and what is the intuitive meaning of each side? I have basic knowledge of conditional probability and Bayes' theorem.
mathematics quantum-correlation
I've been working through the paper Bell nonlocality by Brunner et al. after seeing it in user glS' answer here. Early on in the paper, the standard Bell experimental setup is defined:
Where $x, y in {0,1}$, $a, b in {-1, 1}$, and the two people (Alice & Bob) measure a shared quantum system generated by $S$ according to their indepedent inputs $x$ and $y$, outputting the results as $a$ and $b$.
The paper then has the following equation:
$P(ab|xy) ne P(a|x)P(b|y)$
And claims the fact this is an inequality means the two sides are not statistically independent. It's been a long time since I took probability & statistics in university, so I'm interested in this equation, what it means, and why it is a test for statistical independence. Why is this equation used, and what is the intuitive meaning of each side? I have basic knowledge of conditional probability and Bayes' theorem.
mathematics quantum-correlation
mathematics quantum-correlation
edited Nov 15 at 6:22
asked Nov 14 at 6:44
ahelwer
1,033112
1,033112
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
Statistical independence of random variables means that their joint probability is the product of their marginal probabilities:
$$P(A∩B) = P(A) P(B)$$
The following Venn diagram, in which the event $A$ occupies the left half of the big square, while the event $B$ occupies the lower half, exemplifies the above relation. ($A^c$ and $B^c$ denote the complements).
The above relation extends to conditional probabilities:
$$P(A∩B|X) = P(A|X) P(B|X)$$
Since we can imagine the above diagram inside a subset in which the event $X$ happened.
So, in the question's notation:
$$P(ab|xy) = P(a|xy) P(b|xy)$$
Now, the locality of the measurements (explicitly illustrated in the black boxes) implies that the variable $a$ is independent of $y$ and similarly the variable $b$ is independent of $x$. Thus
$$P(a|xy) = P(a|x)$$
$$P(b|xy) = P(b|y)$$
Thus, in our case, independence would imply that:
$$P(ab|xy) = P(a|x) P(b|y)$$
Ah, okay! So really the important inequalities here are $P(a|xy) ne P(a|x)$ and $P(b|xy) ne P(b|y)$, which stated together is $P(ab|xy) ne P(a|x)P(b|y)$?
– ahelwer
Nov 14 at 19:30
Yes, the principle is that conditioning of quantum probabilities does not preserve independence, even if the observables belong to a commutative subalgebra of the system's operator algebra. In our case the observables are $I otimes sigma_z$ and $ sigma_z otimes I$ which commute. The conditioning preserves the independence in a separable state, for example $|psirangle = |1rangle otimes 1 rangle$, where exactly the above square Venn diagram is obtained, but not in an entangled state, such as the Bell state
– David Bar Moshe
Nov 15 at 10:02
Just to be 100% sure here - in the equation's notation, $P(ab|xy)$ means $P(a cap b | x cap y)$ and not $P(a cdot b | x cdot y)$? Since multiplication would be defined over the values of $a,b,x,y$...
– ahelwer
2 days ago
Yes, this is correct.
– David Bar Moshe
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
The equation
$P(ab|xy) = P(a|x)P(b|y)$
would imply that any dependence that the output $ab$ has on the inputs $xy$ (expressed by the lhs) is solely due to $a$ depending on $x$ alone, and $b$ depending on $y$ alone. This is expressed by the rhs by treating the value of $a$ and its dependence on $x$ as an independent event from the value of $b$ and its dependence on $y$, and hence the probability of a particular $ab$ is the product of these independent probabilities.
In Bell's equalities, we see that this is not the case. Correlations between $a$ and $b$ depend explicitly on which pair of inputs $xy$ is chosen. Specifically, for the CHSH inequality, whether or not $a$ agrees with $b$ depends on both $x$ and $y$, and hence $a$ cannot be said to be independent of $y$ (nor $b$ of $x$). This behaviour means that there will be at least some values of $a$, $b$, $x$ and $y$ where the above equality does not hold.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
It perhaps helps to express $P(ab|xy)$ in words:
the probability that Alice gets answer A and Bob gets answer B given that choices x and y were made
Now independence in classical probability holds if and only if
$$
P(e_1text{ and }e_2)=P(e_1)P(e_2)
$$
where $e_1$ and $e_2$ are events, and practically, you can see what it means through Bayes' theorem
$$
P(e_1|e_2)=frac{P(e_1text{ and }e_2)}{P(e_2)}=P(e_1)
$$
i.e. for independent events, the condition probability is independent of the conditioning.
Now, we could rewrite
$$
P(ab|xy)=P(a|bxy)P(b|xy)
$$
you lose a bit of symmetry by doing it like this, but only briefly. Now, the idea of independence in the current context is that Alice's result should not depend on anything that happens on Bob's side, so $P(a|bxy)=P(a|x)$ and Bob's result should be independent of anything that happens on Alice's side, so $P(b|xy)=P(b|x)$. Hence, independence between Alice and Bob would imply
$$
P(ab|xy)=P(a|x)P(b|y).
$$
So, if this condition holds for all $a,b,x,y$, then the probability distribution is independent, otherwise, the results are not statistically independent.
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
Statistical independence of random variables means that their joint probability is the product of their marginal probabilities:
$$P(A∩B) = P(A) P(B)$$
The following Venn diagram, in which the event $A$ occupies the left half of the big square, while the event $B$ occupies the lower half, exemplifies the above relation. ($A^c$ and $B^c$ denote the complements).
The above relation extends to conditional probabilities:
$$P(A∩B|X) = P(A|X) P(B|X)$$
Since we can imagine the above diagram inside a subset in which the event $X$ happened.
So, in the question's notation:
$$P(ab|xy) = P(a|xy) P(b|xy)$$
Now, the locality of the measurements (explicitly illustrated in the black boxes) implies that the variable $a$ is independent of $y$ and similarly the variable $b$ is independent of $x$. Thus
$$P(a|xy) = P(a|x)$$
$$P(b|xy) = P(b|y)$$
Thus, in our case, independence would imply that:
$$P(ab|xy) = P(a|x) P(b|y)$$
Ah, okay! So really the important inequalities here are $P(a|xy) ne P(a|x)$ and $P(b|xy) ne P(b|y)$, which stated together is $P(ab|xy) ne P(a|x)P(b|y)$?
– ahelwer
Nov 14 at 19:30
Yes, the principle is that conditioning of quantum probabilities does not preserve independence, even if the observables belong to a commutative subalgebra of the system's operator algebra. In our case the observables are $I otimes sigma_z$ and $ sigma_z otimes I$ which commute. The conditioning preserves the independence in a separable state, for example $|psirangle = |1rangle otimes 1 rangle$, where exactly the above square Venn diagram is obtained, but not in an entangled state, such as the Bell state
– David Bar Moshe
Nov 15 at 10:02
Just to be 100% sure here - in the equation's notation, $P(ab|xy)$ means $P(a cap b | x cap y)$ and not $P(a cdot b | x cdot y)$? Since multiplication would be defined over the values of $a,b,x,y$...
– ahelwer
2 days ago
Yes, this is correct.
– David Bar Moshe
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
Statistical independence of random variables means that their joint probability is the product of their marginal probabilities:
$$P(A∩B) = P(A) P(B)$$
The following Venn diagram, in which the event $A$ occupies the left half of the big square, while the event $B$ occupies the lower half, exemplifies the above relation. ($A^c$ and $B^c$ denote the complements).
The above relation extends to conditional probabilities:
$$P(A∩B|X) = P(A|X) P(B|X)$$
Since we can imagine the above diagram inside a subset in which the event $X$ happened.
So, in the question's notation:
$$P(ab|xy) = P(a|xy) P(b|xy)$$
Now, the locality of the measurements (explicitly illustrated in the black boxes) implies that the variable $a$ is independent of $y$ and similarly the variable $b$ is independent of $x$. Thus
$$P(a|xy) = P(a|x)$$
$$P(b|xy) = P(b|y)$$
Thus, in our case, independence would imply that:
$$P(ab|xy) = P(a|x) P(b|y)$$
Ah, okay! So really the important inequalities here are $P(a|xy) ne P(a|x)$ and $P(b|xy) ne P(b|y)$, which stated together is $P(ab|xy) ne P(a|x)P(b|y)$?
– ahelwer
Nov 14 at 19:30
Yes, the principle is that conditioning of quantum probabilities does not preserve independence, even if the observables belong to a commutative subalgebra of the system's operator algebra. In our case the observables are $I otimes sigma_z$ and $ sigma_z otimes I$ which commute. The conditioning preserves the independence in a separable state, for example $|psirangle = |1rangle otimes 1 rangle$, where exactly the above square Venn diagram is obtained, but not in an entangled state, such as the Bell state
– David Bar Moshe
Nov 15 at 10:02
Just to be 100% sure here - in the equation's notation, $P(ab|xy)$ means $P(a cap b | x cap y)$ and not $P(a cdot b | x cdot y)$? Since multiplication would be defined over the values of $a,b,x,y$...
– ahelwer
2 days ago
Yes, this is correct.
– David Bar Moshe
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
Statistical independence of random variables means that their joint probability is the product of their marginal probabilities:
$$P(A∩B) = P(A) P(B)$$
The following Venn diagram, in which the event $A$ occupies the left half of the big square, while the event $B$ occupies the lower half, exemplifies the above relation. ($A^c$ and $B^c$ denote the complements).
The above relation extends to conditional probabilities:
$$P(A∩B|X) = P(A|X) P(B|X)$$
Since we can imagine the above diagram inside a subset in which the event $X$ happened.
So, in the question's notation:
$$P(ab|xy) = P(a|xy) P(b|xy)$$
Now, the locality of the measurements (explicitly illustrated in the black boxes) implies that the variable $a$ is independent of $y$ and similarly the variable $b$ is independent of $x$. Thus
$$P(a|xy) = P(a|x)$$
$$P(b|xy) = P(b|y)$$
Thus, in our case, independence would imply that:
$$P(ab|xy) = P(a|x) P(b|y)$$
Statistical independence of random variables means that their joint probability is the product of their marginal probabilities:
$$P(A∩B) = P(A) P(B)$$
The following Venn diagram, in which the event $A$ occupies the left half of the big square, while the event $B$ occupies the lower half, exemplifies the above relation. ($A^c$ and $B^c$ denote the complements).
The above relation extends to conditional probabilities:
$$P(A∩B|X) = P(A|X) P(B|X)$$
Since we can imagine the above diagram inside a subset in which the event $X$ happened.
So, in the question's notation:
$$P(ab|xy) = P(a|xy) P(b|xy)$$
Now, the locality of the measurements (explicitly illustrated in the black boxes) implies that the variable $a$ is independent of $y$ and similarly the variable $b$ is independent of $x$. Thus
$$P(a|xy) = P(a|x)$$
$$P(b|xy) = P(b|y)$$
Thus, in our case, independence would imply that:
$$P(ab|xy) = P(a|x) P(b|y)$$
answered Nov 14 at 8:38
David Bar Moshe
7425
7425
Ah, okay! So really the important inequalities here are $P(a|xy) ne P(a|x)$ and $P(b|xy) ne P(b|y)$, which stated together is $P(ab|xy) ne P(a|x)P(b|y)$?
– ahelwer
Nov 14 at 19:30
Yes, the principle is that conditioning of quantum probabilities does not preserve independence, even if the observables belong to a commutative subalgebra of the system's operator algebra. In our case the observables are $I otimes sigma_z$ and $ sigma_z otimes I$ which commute. The conditioning preserves the independence in a separable state, for example $|psirangle = |1rangle otimes 1 rangle$, where exactly the above square Venn diagram is obtained, but not in an entangled state, such as the Bell state
– David Bar Moshe
Nov 15 at 10:02
Just to be 100% sure here - in the equation's notation, $P(ab|xy)$ means $P(a cap b | x cap y)$ and not $P(a cdot b | x cdot y)$? Since multiplication would be defined over the values of $a,b,x,y$...
– ahelwer
2 days ago
Yes, this is correct.
– David Bar Moshe
yesterday
add a comment |
Ah, okay! So really the important inequalities here are $P(a|xy) ne P(a|x)$ and $P(b|xy) ne P(b|y)$, which stated together is $P(ab|xy) ne P(a|x)P(b|y)$?
– ahelwer
Nov 14 at 19:30
Yes, the principle is that conditioning of quantum probabilities does not preserve independence, even if the observables belong to a commutative subalgebra of the system's operator algebra. In our case the observables are $I otimes sigma_z$ and $ sigma_z otimes I$ which commute. The conditioning preserves the independence in a separable state, for example $|psirangle = |1rangle otimes 1 rangle$, where exactly the above square Venn diagram is obtained, but not in an entangled state, such as the Bell state
– David Bar Moshe
Nov 15 at 10:02
Just to be 100% sure here - in the equation's notation, $P(ab|xy)$ means $P(a cap b | x cap y)$ and not $P(a cdot b | x cdot y)$? Since multiplication would be defined over the values of $a,b,x,y$...
– ahelwer
2 days ago
Yes, this is correct.
– David Bar Moshe
yesterday
Ah, okay! So really the important inequalities here are $P(a|xy) ne P(a|x)$ and $P(b|xy) ne P(b|y)$, which stated together is $P(ab|xy) ne P(a|x)P(b|y)$?
– ahelwer
Nov 14 at 19:30
Ah, okay! So really the important inequalities here are $P(a|xy) ne P(a|x)$ and $P(b|xy) ne P(b|y)$, which stated together is $P(ab|xy) ne P(a|x)P(b|y)$?
– ahelwer
Nov 14 at 19:30
Yes, the principle is that conditioning of quantum probabilities does not preserve independence, even if the observables belong to a commutative subalgebra of the system's operator algebra. In our case the observables are $I otimes sigma_z$ and $ sigma_z otimes I$ which commute. The conditioning preserves the independence in a separable state, for example $|psirangle = |1rangle otimes 1 rangle$, where exactly the above square Venn diagram is obtained, but not in an entangled state, such as the Bell state
– David Bar Moshe
Nov 15 at 10:02
Yes, the principle is that conditioning of quantum probabilities does not preserve independence, even if the observables belong to a commutative subalgebra of the system's operator algebra. In our case the observables are $I otimes sigma_z$ and $ sigma_z otimes I$ which commute. The conditioning preserves the independence in a separable state, for example $|psirangle = |1rangle otimes 1 rangle$, where exactly the above square Venn diagram is obtained, but not in an entangled state, such as the Bell state
– David Bar Moshe
Nov 15 at 10:02
Just to be 100% sure here - in the equation's notation, $P(ab|xy)$ means $P(a cap b | x cap y)$ and not $P(a cdot b | x cdot y)$? Since multiplication would be defined over the values of $a,b,x,y$...
– ahelwer
2 days ago
Just to be 100% sure here - in the equation's notation, $P(ab|xy)$ means $P(a cap b | x cap y)$ and not $P(a cdot b | x cdot y)$? Since multiplication would be defined over the values of $a,b,x,y$...
– ahelwer
2 days ago
Yes, this is correct.
– David Bar Moshe
yesterday
Yes, this is correct.
– David Bar Moshe
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
The equation
$P(ab|xy) = P(a|x)P(b|y)$
would imply that any dependence that the output $ab$ has on the inputs $xy$ (expressed by the lhs) is solely due to $a$ depending on $x$ alone, and $b$ depending on $y$ alone. This is expressed by the rhs by treating the value of $a$ and its dependence on $x$ as an independent event from the value of $b$ and its dependence on $y$, and hence the probability of a particular $ab$ is the product of these independent probabilities.
In Bell's equalities, we see that this is not the case. Correlations between $a$ and $b$ depend explicitly on which pair of inputs $xy$ is chosen. Specifically, for the CHSH inequality, whether or not $a$ agrees with $b$ depends on both $x$ and $y$, and hence $a$ cannot be said to be independent of $y$ (nor $b$ of $x$). This behaviour means that there will be at least some values of $a$, $b$, $x$ and $y$ where the above equality does not hold.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
The equation
$P(ab|xy) = P(a|x)P(b|y)$
would imply that any dependence that the output $ab$ has on the inputs $xy$ (expressed by the lhs) is solely due to $a$ depending on $x$ alone, and $b$ depending on $y$ alone. This is expressed by the rhs by treating the value of $a$ and its dependence on $x$ as an independent event from the value of $b$ and its dependence on $y$, and hence the probability of a particular $ab$ is the product of these independent probabilities.
In Bell's equalities, we see that this is not the case. Correlations between $a$ and $b$ depend explicitly on which pair of inputs $xy$ is chosen. Specifically, for the CHSH inequality, whether or not $a$ agrees with $b$ depends on both $x$ and $y$, and hence $a$ cannot be said to be independent of $y$ (nor $b$ of $x$). This behaviour means that there will be at least some values of $a$, $b$, $x$ and $y$ where the above equality does not hold.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
The equation
$P(ab|xy) = P(a|x)P(b|y)$
would imply that any dependence that the output $ab$ has on the inputs $xy$ (expressed by the lhs) is solely due to $a$ depending on $x$ alone, and $b$ depending on $y$ alone. This is expressed by the rhs by treating the value of $a$ and its dependence on $x$ as an independent event from the value of $b$ and its dependence on $y$, and hence the probability of a particular $ab$ is the product of these independent probabilities.
In Bell's equalities, we see that this is not the case. Correlations between $a$ and $b$ depend explicitly on which pair of inputs $xy$ is chosen. Specifically, for the CHSH inequality, whether or not $a$ agrees with $b$ depends on both $x$ and $y$, and hence $a$ cannot be said to be independent of $y$ (nor $b$ of $x$). This behaviour means that there will be at least some values of $a$, $b$, $x$ and $y$ where the above equality does not hold.
The equation
$P(ab|xy) = P(a|x)P(b|y)$
would imply that any dependence that the output $ab$ has on the inputs $xy$ (expressed by the lhs) is solely due to $a$ depending on $x$ alone, and $b$ depending on $y$ alone. This is expressed by the rhs by treating the value of $a$ and its dependence on $x$ as an independent event from the value of $b$ and its dependence on $y$, and hence the probability of a particular $ab$ is the product of these independent probabilities.
In Bell's equalities, we see that this is not the case. Correlations between $a$ and $b$ depend explicitly on which pair of inputs $xy$ is chosen. Specifically, for the CHSH inequality, whether or not $a$ agrees with $b$ depends on both $x$ and $y$, and hence $a$ cannot be said to be independent of $y$ (nor $b$ of $x$). This behaviour means that there will be at least some values of $a$, $b$, $x$ and $y$ where the above equality does not hold.
answered Nov 14 at 8:11
James Wootton
5,8001942
5,8001942
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
It perhaps helps to express $P(ab|xy)$ in words:
the probability that Alice gets answer A and Bob gets answer B given that choices x and y were made
Now independence in classical probability holds if and only if
$$
P(e_1text{ and }e_2)=P(e_1)P(e_2)
$$
where $e_1$ and $e_2$ are events, and practically, you can see what it means through Bayes' theorem
$$
P(e_1|e_2)=frac{P(e_1text{ and }e_2)}{P(e_2)}=P(e_1)
$$
i.e. for independent events, the condition probability is independent of the conditioning.
Now, we could rewrite
$$
P(ab|xy)=P(a|bxy)P(b|xy)
$$
you lose a bit of symmetry by doing it like this, but only briefly. Now, the idea of independence in the current context is that Alice's result should not depend on anything that happens on Bob's side, so $P(a|bxy)=P(a|x)$ and Bob's result should be independent of anything that happens on Alice's side, so $P(b|xy)=P(b|x)$. Hence, independence between Alice and Bob would imply
$$
P(ab|xy)=P(a|x)P(b|y).
$$
So, if this condition holds for all $a,b,x,y$, then the probability distribution is independent, otherwise, the results are not statistically independent.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
It perhaps helps to express $P(ab|xy)$ in words:
the probability that Alice gets answer A and Bob gets answer B given that choices x and y were made
Now independence in classical probability holds if and only if
$$
P(e_1text{ and }e_2)=P(e_1)P(e_2)
$$
where $e_1$ and $e_2$ are events, and practically, you can see what it means through Bayes' theorem
$$
P(e_1|e_2)=frac{P(e_1text{ and }e_2)}{P(e_2)}=P(e_1)
$$
i.e. for independent events, the condition probability is independent of the conditioning.
Now, we could rewrite
$$
P(ab|xy)=P(a|bxy)P(b|xy)
$$
you lose a bit of symmetry by doing it like this, but only briefly. Now, the idea of independence in the current context is that Alice's result should not depend on anything that happens on Bob's side, so $P(a|bxy)=P(a|x)$ and Bob's result should be independent of anything that happens on Alice's side, so $P(b|xy)=P(b|x)$. Hence, independence between Alice and Bob would imply
$$
P(ab|xy)=P(a|x)P(b|y).
$$
So, if this condition holds for all $a,b,x,y$, then the probability distribution is independent, otherwise, the results are not statistically independent.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
It perhaps helps to express $P(ab|xy)$ in words:
the probability that Alice gets answer A and Bob gets answer B given that choices x and y were made
Now independence in classical probability holds if and only if
$$
P(e_1text{ and }e_2)=P(e_1)P(e_2)
$$
where $e_1$ and $e_2$ are events, and practically, you can see what it means through Bayes' theorem
$$
P(e_1|e_2)=frac{P(e_1text{ and }e_2)}{P(e_2)}=P(e_1)
$$
i.e. for independent events, the condition probability is independent of the conditioning.
Now, we could rewrite
$$
P(ab|xy)=P(a|bxy)P(b|xy)
$$
you lose a bit of symmetry by doing it like this, but only briefly. Now, the idea of independence in the current context is that Alice's result should not depend on anything that happens on Bob's side, so $P(a|bxy)=P(a|x)$ and Bob's result should be independent of anything that happens on Alice's side, so $P(b|xy)=P(b|x)$. Hence, independence between Alice and Bob would imply
$$
P(ab|xy)=P(a|x)P(b|y).
$$
So, if this condition holds for all $a,b,x,y$, then the probability distribution is independent, otherwise, the results are not statistically independent.
It perhaps helps to express $P(ab|xy)$ in words:
the probability that Alice gets answer A and Bob gets answer B given that choices x and y were made
Now independence in classical probability holds if and only if
$$
P(e_1text{ and }e_2)=P(e_1)P(e_2)
$$
where $e_1$ and $e_2$ are events, and practically, you can see what it means through Bayes' theorem
$$
P(e_1|e_2)=frac{P(e_1text{ and }e_2)}{P(e_2)}=P(e_1)
$$
i.e. for independent events, the condition probability is independent of the conditioning.
Now, we could rewrite
$$
P(ab|xy)=P(a|bxy)P(b|xy)
$$
you lose a bit of symmetry by doing it like this, but only briefly. Now, the idea of independence in the current context is that Alice's result should not depend on anything that happens on Bob's side, so $P(a|bxy)=P(a|x)$ and Bob's result should be independent of anything that happens on Alice's side, so $P(b|xy)=P(b|x)$. Hence, independence between Alice and Bob would imply
$$
P(ab|xy)=P(a|x)P(b|y).
$$
So, if this condition holds for all $a,b,x,y$, then the probability distribution is independent, otherwise, the results are not statistically independent.
answered Nov 14 at 8:30
DaftWullie
10.6k1534
10.6k1534
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fquantumcomputing.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f4706%2fbell-nonlocality-and-conditional-independence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown