Statement and Proof of the KS Theorem 3.

1 Statement of the KS Theorem An explicit statement of the KS theorem runs thus: Let H be a Hilbert space of QM state vectors of dimension x 3. There is a se t M of observables on H, containing y elements, such that the followong two assu mptions are contradictory: (KS1) All y members of M simultaneously have values, i.e. are unambiguously mapped onto real numbers (designated, for observables A, B, C, , by v(A), v(B), v (C), ). (KS2) Values of observables conform to the following constraints: (a) If A, B, C are all compatible and C = A+B, then v(C) = v(A)+v(B); (b) if A, B, C are all compatible and C = AB, then v(C) = v(A)v(B). Assumption KS1 of the theorem obviously is an equivalent of VD. Assumptions KS2 (a) and (b) are called the Sum Rule and the Product Rule, respectively, in the l iterature. (The reader should again note that, in opposition to von Neumann's im plicit premise, these rules non-trivially relate the values of compatible observ ables only.) Both are consequences of a deeper principle called the functional c omposition principle (FUNC), which in turn is a consequence of (among other assu mptions) NC. The connection between NC, FUNC, Sum Rule and Product Rule will be made explicit in Section 4. In the original KS proof x=3 and y=117. More recently proofs involving less obse rvables have been given by (among many others) Peres (1991, 1995) for x=3 and y= 33, by Kernaghan (1994) for x=4 and y=20 and by Cabello et al. (1996) for x=4 an d y=18. The KS proof is notoriously complex, and we will only sketch it in Secti on 3.4. The Peres proof establishes the KS result in full strength, with great s implicity, and, moreover, in an intuitively accessible way, since it operates in three dimensions; we refer the reader to Peres (1995: 19799). The proofs by Kern aghan and Cabello et al. each establish a contradiction in four dimensions. Thes e are weaker results, of course, than the KS theorem (since every contradiction in 3 dimensions is also a contradiction in higher dimensions, but not conversely ). However, these other proofs are very simple and instructive. Moreover, it can be shown (Pavii et al. 2005) that y=18 is the lowest number for which the KS theo rem holds true, so we start by presenting the proof of Cabello and his co-worker s in Section 3.2. Finally, in Section 3.5, we explain an argument by Clifton (19 93) where x=3 and y=8 and an additional statistical assumption yields an easy an d instructive KS argument. 3.2 A Quick KS Argument in Four Dimensions (Cabello et al.) A particularly easy KS argument proceeds in a four-dimensional Hilbert space H4. We will use the following, which will be proved in the next section: (1) From KS2 tors, namely nding to the he following (VC1) , 3, 4. we can derive a constraint on value assignments to projection opera that for every set of projection operators P1, P2, P3, P4, correspo four distinct eigenvalues q1, q2, q3, q4 of an observable Q on H4 t holds: v(P1) + v(P2) + v(P3) + v(P4) = 1, where v(Pi) = 1 or 0, for i = 1, 2

((VC1) is a variant of (VC1) which we prove explicitly in the next section.) This means in effect that of every set of four orthogonal rays in H4 exactly one is assigned the number 1, the others 0.

(2) Although the Hilbert space mentioned in the theorem, in order to be suited f or QM, must be complex, it is enough, in order to show the inconsistency of clai ms KS1 and KS2, to consider a real Hilbert space of the same dimension. So, inst ead of H4 we consider a real Hilbert space R4 and translate VC1 into the requirem ent: Of every set of orthogonal rays in R4, exactly one is assigned the number 1 and the others 0. As usual in the literature, we translate all this into the fo llowing colouring problem: Of every set of orthogonal rays in R4 exactly one mus t be coloured white, the others black. This, however, is impossible, as is shown immediately by the following table (Cabello et al. 1996): 0,0, 0,1 0,0, 0,1 1,1, 1,1 1,1, 1,1 0,0, 1,0 1,1, 1,1 1,1, 1,1 1,1, 1,1 1,1, 1,1 0,0, 1,0 0,1, 0,0 1,1, 1,1 1,1, 1,1, 0,1, 0,0 1,1, 1,1 1,1, 1,1 1,1, 1,1 1,1, 1,1 1,1, 0,0 1,0, 1,0 1,1, 0,0 1,0, 1,0 1,0, 0,1 1,0, 0,1 1,1, 0,0 1,0, 1,0 1,0, 0,1 1,1, 0,0 1,0, 1,0 0,0, 1,1 0,1, 0,1 1,0, 0,1 0,1, 1,0 0,0, 1,1 0,1, 0,1 0,1, 1,0 There are 4 x 9 = 36 entries in this table. These entries are taken from a set o f 18 rays and every ray appears twice. It is easy to verify that every column in the table represents a set of four orthogonal rays. Since there are 9 columns, we must end up with an odd number of the table's entries coloured white. However , since every ray appears twice any time we colour one of them white, we commit ourselves to colouring an even number of the entries white. It follows that the total number of table entries coloured white must be even, not odd. Thus, a colo uring of these 18 rays in accordance with VC1 is impossible. (Note for future ref erence that the first part of the argument the argument for odd uses only VC1, whil

e the second the argument for even relies essentially on NC, by assuming that occu rrences of the same ray in different columns are assigned the same number!) 3.3 The Original KS Argument. Technical Preliminaries. The original KS proof operates on a three-dimensional complex Hilbert space H3. It requires two things: (1) sets of triples of rays which are orthogonal in H3; (2) a constraint to the effect that of every orthogonal triple one ray gets assi gned the number 1, the two others 0. Both can be achieved as follows: We consider an arbitrary operator Q on H3 with three distinct eigenvalues q1, q2 , q3, its eigenvectors |q1>, |q2>, |q3>, and projection operators P1, P2, P3 pro jecting on the rays spanned by these vectors. Now, P1, P2, P3 are themselves obs ervables (namely, Pi is a yes-no observable corresponding to the question Does the system have value qi for Q?). Moreover, P1, P2, P3 are mutually compatible, so we can apply the Sum Rule and Product Rule, and thereby derive a constraint on the assignment of values (Proof): (VC1) v(P1) + v(P2) + v(P3) = 1, where v(Pi) = 1 or 0, for i = 1, 2, 3. The arbitrary choice of an observable Q defines new observables P1, P2, P3 which , in turn, select rays in H3. So, to impose that observables P1, P2, P3 all have values means to assign numbers to rays in H3, and VC1, in particular, means tha t of an arbitrary triple of orthogonal rays, specified by choice of an arbitrary Q (briefly: an orthogonal triple in H3), exactly one of its rays is assigned 1, the others 0. Now, if we introduce different incompatible observables Q, Q, Q, th ese observables select different orthogonal triples in H3. Assumption (1) of the KS theorem (which, effectively, is VD) now tells us that every one of these tri ples has three values, and VC1 tells us that these values must be for every trip le, exactly {1, 0, 0}. What KS now shows is that, for a specific finite set of o rthogonal triples in H3, an assignment of numbers {1, 0, 0} to every one of them (matching in common rays) is impossible. Further reflection yields that while H 3 is complex, it is in fact enough to consider a real three-dimensional Hilbert space R3. For we can show that if an assignment of values according to VC1 is po ssible on H3, then it is possible on R3. Contrapositively, if the assignment is impossible on R3, then it is impossible on H3. So we can fulfill the conditions necessary to get the KS proof started and at the same time reduce the problem to one on R3. Now, the equivalent in R3 of an arbitrary orthogonal triple in H3, i s, again, an arbitrary triple of orthogonal rays (briefly: an orthogonal triple in R3). So, if KS want to show that, for a specific set of n orthogonal triples in H3 (where n is a natural number), an assignment of numbers {1, 0, 0} to every one of them is impossible, it is enough for them to show that, for a specific s et of n orthogonal triples in R3, an assignment of numbers {1, 0, 0} to every on e of them is impossible. And this is exactly what they do. It should be stressed that at this point there is no direct connection between R 3 and physical space. KS wish to show that for an arbitrary QM system requiring a representation in a Hilbert space of at least three dimensions, the ascription of values in conjunction with condition (KS2) (Sum Rule and Product Rule) is im possible, and in order to do this it is sufficient to consider the space R3. Thi s space R3, however, does not represent physical space for the quantum system at issue. In particular, orthogonality in R3 is not to be confused with orthogonal ity in physical space. This becomes obvious if we move to an example of a QM sys tem sitting in physical space and at the same time requiring a QM representation in H3, e.g. the spin degree of freedom of a one-particle spin-1 system. Given a n arbitrary direction in physical space and an operator S representing the observ able of a spin component in direction , H3 is spanned by the eigenvectors of S, na mely |S=1>, |S=0>, |S=1>, which are mutually orthogonal in H3. The fact that these t hree vectors corresponding to three possible results of measurement in one spati al direction are mutually orthogonal illustrates the different senses of orthogo

nality in H3 and in physical space. (The reason lies, of course, in the structur e of QM, which represents different values of an observable by different directi ons in H3.) KS themselves, in the abstract, proceed in exactly the same way, but they illust rate with an example that does establish a direct connection with physical space . It is important to see this connection, but also to be clear that it is produc ed by KS's example and is not inherent in their mathematical result. KS propose to consider a one-particle spin-1 system and the measurement of the squared comp onents of orthogonal directions of spin in physical space Sx2, Sy2, Sz2, which a re compatible (while Sx, Sy, Sz themselves are not).[7] Measurement of a squared component of spin determines only its absolute value. Here, they derive a sligh tly different constraint on value assignments, again using the Sum Rule and the Product Rule (Proof): (VC2) v(Sx2) + v(Sy2) + v(Sz2) = 2, where v(S2) = 1 or 0, for = x, y, z. Now, since Sx2, Sy2, Sz2 are compatible, there is an observable O such that Sx2, Sy2, Sz2 are all functions of O. So, the choice of an arbitrary such O fixes Sx 2, Sy2, Sz2 and, since the latter can be directly associated with mutually ortho gonal rays in H3, again fixes the choice of an orthogonal triple in H3. The resu lting problem here is to assign numbers {1, 1, 0} to an orthogonal triple in H3 specified by the choice of O or, more directly, of Sx2, Sy2, Sz2. This is, of co urse, the mirror-image of our previous problem of assigning numbers {1, 0, 0} to such a triple, and we need not consider it separately. However, the choice of a specific O that selects observables Sx2, Sy2, Sz2 at th e same time selects three orthogonal rays in physical space, namely by fixing a coordinate system x, y, z (which defines along which orthogonal rays the squared sp in components are to be measured) in physical space. So now, by choice of an obs ervable O, there is a direct connection of directions in space with directions i n H3: orthogonality in H3 now does correspond to orthogonality in physical space . The same holds for R3, if, in order to give an argument for H3, we consider R3 . Orthogonality in R3 now corresponds to orthogonality in physical space. It is important to notice that this correspondence is not necessary to give the argume nt, even if we insist that the pure mathematical facts should be supplemented by a physical interpretation since we have, just before, seen an example without a ny correspondence. The point is only that we can devise an example such that the re is a correspondence. In particular, we can now follow the proof in R3 and all along imagine a system sitting in physical space, namely a spin-1 particle, ret urning three values upon measurement of three physical magnitudes, associated di rectly with orthogonal directions in physical space, namely v(Sx2), v(Sy2), v(Sz 2), for arbitrary choices of x, y, z. The KS proof then shows that it is impossi ble (given its premises, of course) to assign to the spin-1 particle values for all these arbitrary choices. That is, the KS argument shows that (given the prem ises) a spin 1 particle cannot possess all the properties at once which it displ ays in different measurement arrangements. Three further features which have become customary in KS arguments need to be me ntioned: (1) Obviously, we can unambiguously specify any ray in R3 through the origin by just giving one point contained in it. KS thus identify rays with points on the unit sphere E. KS do not need to refer to concrete coordinates of a certain poin t, since their argument is coordinate-free. We will, however, for illustration som etimes mention concrete points and then (a) use Cartesian coordinates to check o rthogonality relations and (b) specify rays by points not lying on E. (Thus, e.g ., the triple of points (0, 0, 1), (4, 1, 0), (1, 4, 0) is used to specify a trip le of orthogonal rays.) Both usages conform with the recent literature (see e.g.

Peres (1991) and Clifton (1993)). (2) We translate the constraints (VC1) and (VC2) on value ascriptions into const raints for colouring the points. We can, operating under (VC1) colour the points white (for 1) and black (for 0), or, operating under (VC2) colour the points white (for 0) and black (for 1). In either case the constraints translate into the same co louring problem. (3) KS illustrate orthogonality relations of rays by graphs which have come to b e called KS diagrams. In such a diagram each ray (or point specifying a ray) is represented by a vertex. Vertices joined by a straight line represent orthogonal rays. The colouring problem then translates into the problem of colouring the v ertices of the diagram white or black such that joined vertices cannot be both w hite and triangles have exactly one white vertex. 3.4 The Original KS Argument. Sketch of the Proof. KS proceed in two steps. (1) In the first (and decisive) step they show that two rays with opposite colou rs cannot be arbitrarily close. They first show that the diagram 1 depicted in Fi g. 1 (where for the time being we ignore the colours specified in the figure) ca n be constructed, only if a0 and a9 are separated by an angle with 0 sin1(1/3) (P roof). fig1 Figure 1: Ten-point KS graph 1 with inconsistent colouring. Consider now (for a reductio ad absurdum) that a0 and a9 have different colours. We arbitrarily colour a0 white and a9 black. The colouring constraints then for ce us to colour the rest of the diagram as is done in Fig. 1, but this requires that a5 and a6 are orthogonal and both white which is forbidden. Hence, two poin ts closer than sin1(1/3) cannot have different colours. Contrapositively, two poi nts of different colour cannot be closer than sin1(1/3). (2) KS now construct another quite complicated KS diagram 2 in the following way. They consider a realization of 1 for an angle =18 < sin1(1/3). Now they choose thre e orthogonal points p0, q0, r0 and space interlocking copies of 1 between them su ch that every instance of point a9 of one copy of 1 is identified with the instan ce of a0 of the next copy. In this way five interlocking copies of 1 are spaced b etween p0 and q0 and all five instances of a8 are identified with r0 (likewise f ive such interlocking copies are spaced between q0 and r0, identifying all copie s of a8 with p0, and between p0 and r0, identifying all copies of a8 with q0). T hat 2 is constructible is borne out directly by the construction itself. Spacing out five copies of 1 with angles =18 between instances of a0 will space out an angl e of 5x18 = 90 which is exactly what is required. Moreover, wandering from one cop y of 1 to the next between, say, p0 and q0 is equivalent to a rotation by 18 of th e copy about the axis through the origin and r0, which evidently conserves the o rthogonality between the points a0 and a9 of the copy and r0. fig2 Figure 2: 117-point KS graph 2 (From Kochen and Specker 1967, 69; by permission of the Indiana University M athematics Journal) However, although 2 is constructible it is not consistently colourable. From the first step we know that a copy of 1 with =18 requires that points a0 and a9 have eq ual colour. Now, since a9 in one copy of 1 is identical to a0 in the next copy, a 9 in the second copy must have the same colour as a0 in the first. Indeed, by re petition of this argument all instances of a0 must have the same colour. Now, p0 , q0, r0 are identified with points a0, so they must be either all white or all

black both of which are inconsistent with the colouring constraint that exactly one of them be white. If from the 15 copies of 1 used in the process of constructing 2 we subtract those points that were identified with each other, we end up with 117 different point s. So, what KS have shown is that a set of 117 yes-no observables cannot consist ently be assigned values in accordance with VC1 (or, equivalently, VC2). Note that in the construction of 1, i.e. the set of 10 points forming 22 interloc king triples, all points except a9 appear in more than one triple. In 2 every poi nt appears in a multiplicity of triples. It is here that the noncontextuality pr emise is crucial to the argument: we assume that an arbitrary point keeps its va lue 1 or 0 as we move from one orthogonal triple to the next (i.e. from one maxi mal set of compatible observables to another). 3.5 A Statistical KS Argument in Three Dimensions (Clifton) Recall KS's first step, which establishes that two points with opposite colour c annot be arbitrarily close. It is this first step which carries the whole force of the argument. Bell had established it in a different way and had then argued that in a noncontextual HV interpretation points with opposite colour must be ar bitrarily close. It is this first step that Clifton exploits in an argument that combines Bell's and KS's ideas. fig3 Figure 3: 8-point KS-Clifton graph 3 with inconsistent colouring. Consider the KS diagram 3 shown in Figure 3 which obviously is a part of KS's 1, b ut which has additional concrete assignments of eight points satisfying the orth ogonality relations (and thus proving directly that 3 is constructible). From our previous colouring constraints (joined points are not both white and a triangle has exactly one white point) we see immediately that 3 is colourable only if the outermost points are not both white (which would require, as shown in Fig. 3, t hat two joined points are white contrary to the constraints). Moreover, we easil y calculate the angle between the two outermost points to be cos1(1/3).[8] So we conclude that if one wants to colour all eight points and wants to colour white one of the outer ones, then the other must be black. Taking into account that we can insert a diagram between any two points in R3 which are separated by exactl y the angle cos1(1/3) and translating our problem back from a colouring problem i nto KS's example (constraint VC2), we end with a constraint VC2: (VC2) If, for a spin-1 system, a certain direction x of spin in space is as signed value 0, then any other direction x which lies away from x by an angle cos1 (1/3) must be assigned value 1, or, in symbols: If v(Sx)=0, then v(Sx)=1. The argument so far has made use of the original KS conditions KS1 and KS2. We n ow assume, in addition, that any constraint on value assignments will show up in the measurement statistics. In particular: (3) If prob[v(A)=a] = 1, and v(A)=a implies v(B)=b, then prob[v(B)=b] = 1. Despite the use of statistics, this reasoning crucially differs from von Neumann 's argument. Von Neumann had argued that algebraic relations between values shou ld transfer into the statistics of the measured values, therefore the QM constra ints on these statistics should have value constraints as their exact mirror ima ges which reasoning leads us to derive value constraints from statistical constr aints (for arbitrary observables). Here, on the contrary, we derive a value cons traint independently from any statistical reasoning, and then conclude that this constraint should transfer into the measurement statistics.[9] Now, VC2 and the statistical condition (3) entail: If prob[v(Sx)=0]=1, then prob[

v(Sx)=1]=1. This, however, contradicts the statistics derived from QM for a state where prob[v(Sx)=0] = 1.[10] In fact, there is a probability of 1/17 that v(Sx=0 ). So, in a long-run test 1/17 of the spin-1 particles will violate the constrai nt. If we accept Clifton's statistical reasoning, we have an entirely valid KS argum ent establishing a contradiction between an HV interpretation of QM and the very predictions of QM. Clifton presents also a slightly more complex set of 13 obse rvables yielding, along the same lines, a statistical contradiction of 1/3. Clifton's argument uses 8 (or 13) observables, fixes a value of one of them (Sx) and derives a HV prediction at variance with a QM prediction for a second one ( Sx). Hence, if a state can be produced where the QM system definitely has value v (Sx)=0 the predictions can be tested empirically. But fixing such a state experi mentally is not an easy matter. So Clifton's argument depends on a state that ma y be difficult to produce or isolate. Recently, a construction of 13 observables has been found that allows for a state-independent statistical argument (Yu and Oh 2012).