Talk:Kochen–Specker theorem

Somebody needs to translate the (apparently) much more in depth [1] on the german wikipedia. Damn those germans, and their superiority in physics and automobile egineering.

Not to mention beer.

Superfluous references to droplet experiments?

I really liked this Wikipedia article, it must be one of the best on Wikipedia. However, I found it odd that in the references there are seven (!) refs (15-21) on some nonlinear dynamics experiments with droplets bouncing on a liquid surface, which is at best marginally related to the discussion. Given how marginal this is, that seems to be an instance of advertising of a group's work. A single reference would certainly suffice, or none at all. All of these seem to have been added in August 2011 by some user in Montreal.

If anyone with more stake in this article agrees, maybe they can take out those refs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.136.108 (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I did some weeding in that section. Wimvdam (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks on the KS theorem

I have reverted two edits by User: Stephen Poppitt for the following reasons:

i) `contextuality' is a physical concept; it cannot be equated with the mathematical concept `incompatibility of observables';

ii) The statement about `all hidden variables theories' is incorrect; it should be restricted to so-called objectivistic and quasi-objectivistic hidden variables theories.WMdeMuynck (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

iii)typo in last para of history section 'publushed' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.82.6 (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation is wrong

The current interpretation in the introduction given as The Kochen–Specker proof demonstrates the impossibility that quantum-mechanical observables represent "elements of physical reality". constitutes a category error. Kochen-Specker has a mathematical proof and is a mathematical theorem. It is not possible that a mathematical proof makes any statement on physical reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.173.191 (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]