\chapter{The Leggett-Garg Inequalities} Consider a system characterized by a dichotomous observable, which assumes values $\pm1$. Leggett-Garg inequalities (from now on LGI) set constrains on the value accessible to the two-times correlations functions $C_{ij}= \langle Q_{i}Q_{j} \rangle$, obtain measuring it at $t_{i}$ and $t_{j}$. The simplest of them is: \begin{equation}\label{LGI} -3 \leq K \leq 1 \end{equation} \begin{equation}\label{K} K=C_{12}+C_{23}-C_{31} \end{equation} This inequality is the focus of this chapter. Sections 2.1 is dedicated to the two assumptions required to obtain the inequality, a proof of (\ref{LGI}) is given. In section 2.2 I examine under which conditions a violation of (\ref{LGI}) can be observed, particular …show more content…
This observation leads to the clumsiness loophole (see section 2.2). \subsection{Correlation Functions} These assumptions lead to some properties of correlation functions $C_{ij}$, essential for the proof of (\ref{LGI}). Consider firstly their definition: Where $Q_{i}$ is the value of a dichotomous observable measured at time $t_{i}$, and the joint probabilities are obtained repeating the experiment. Postulate 1 provides that Q(t) is a well defined quantity for every time t, even for times different from $t_{i}$ and $t_{j}$. Thus it is possible to define a three-time probability and to obtain $P_{ij}(Q_{i},Q_{j})$ as its marginal, for notation simplicity set $i=1$ and $j=2$. Where the subscript $12$ specifies at which times the measurements are actually carried out. Because of what I have just said $P_{12}(Q_{1},Q_{2},Q_{3})$ is well defined and the other joint probabilities can be found as marginals of similar distributions. Postulate 2 provides that all these three-times probabilities are the same, the choice of (i,j) is irrelevant since the measurements don't influence the …show more content…
Kofler and Brukner have proven that this is indeed the case for any nontrivial time independent Hamiltonian \cite{kofler2008conditions}, in the next section I report the explicit proof. \section{LGI violation} Firstly note that in eq. (\ref{LGI}) just the upper bound is of interest, considering that we are summing three quantities bound in module to unity: Consider a general quantum system characterized by a set of energy eigenstate ${ \{ \ket{u_{i}}\}}$. The proof is effective for any initial state different from an eigenstate of \textbf{H}, for simplicity consider: This\footnote{Note that the ensemble of eigenvectors don't need to be restricted to these two values.} is assumed to be the result of the first measure (at time $t_{0}$), whom is assigned the eigenvalue +1, for every other state the eigenvalue is set to -1. The dichotomic observable is then
h_i. Otherwise, C generates a random coin d_i={0,1} so that Pr[d_i=0]=1/(q_T+1), then C selects a random element γ_i∈Z_q, if d_i=0, C computes h_i=g^(γ_i ), otherwise, C computes h_i =g^x, C adds the tuple to H-list, and responds to A with H(W_i) = h_i.
where $x_i,i=1,2, cdots ,n$ are the states, $underline{x}_i=[x_1,cdots,x_i]^{T} in{R}^i$, $i=1,2, cdots ,n $, $uin {R}$ is the input, and $f_i(cdot)$,$i=1,2, cdots ,n $ are the unknown smooth nonlinear functions which satisfy the global Lipschitz condition. It is assumed that the output $y(cdot)$ is sampled at instants $t_k,k=1,2, cdots ,n$, which represent the sampling instants. $T=t_{k+1}-t_k$ is the sampling interval which is a positive constant. The output signal is available for the observer at instants $t_k+ au_k$, where $ au_k$ are the transmission delays and satisfy $0 leqslant au_k leqslant T$. egin{remark} label{rem:1}
4. Strong collision: given a message M1, it is not possible to find two distinct messages such that h (M1’) = h (M1). The probability of this collision is 2n/2.
While similar, this case proves the Glossip case has no consistencies in the
(Sutherland 46). The quote from a Differential Association Theory packet by
He puts in his paper some counter arguments as
Challenging inequality in australian schools : Gonski and beyond is an opinion piece written by Jane Kenway , This article looks at the inequality of school funding in Australia , and in particular the Gonski report , Kenway gives insights into the different schooling sectors such as government , catholic and independent and the government funding for each . Kenya also discusses the disproportion of those disadvantage and advantage students across all sectors of schooling . Challenging inequality in Australian schools : Gonski and beyond is an opinion piece , in which Kenway has a number of arguments , Kenways first line of argument discusses one of the great areas of the Gonski report , is that provides clear data showing social advantage
The Gracchus brothers were genuine in their reforms for the poor, but were naive to the inequalities created by their reforms. The Gracchus brothers tried to close the economic gap by having the wealthy part of the nation give up something for a period of time. This creates inequalities in the government because the wealthy has to give up something and help pay for everyone else while no one else is doing it. This may have not been the Gracchus brothers intention, but it does create an imbalance. The Gracchus brothers wanted to just close the economic gap in the government by having the rich give up land or money for food to solve the problems of overcrowding and etc, but wealthy interprets it as a grab for power by the poor class.
In Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools, Jonathan Kozol exploits extreme inequalities between the schools in East St. Louis and Morris High in Rye, New York in the 1990s. The living conditions in East St. Louis were deplorable. There was no trash collection service, the sewage system was dysfunctional, and crime, illness, poverty, and pollution ran rampant. The schools in East St. Louis had a predominately black student population, and the buildings were extremely obsolete, with lab equipment that was outdated by thirty to fifty years, a football field without goalposts, sports uniforms held together by patches, and a plumbing system that repeatedly spewed sewage. In addition, there was a substantial lack of funds that prevented
“Harrison Bergeron” conveys the idea that the only way to reach equality is through the eradication of competition. However, the true underlying message in this short story is that comparison is the root of inequality. In an exchange between Hazel and her husband, George refers to the period before the ratification of the 211th-213th Amendments as “the dark ages” and traces the dark days back to the rivalry that tore people apart. This indicates that their society does not allow anyone to be better than another for the sole purpose of making sure no one feels lesser than someone else: equality.
Another example of this that is mentioned in the text
Kozol, Jonathan. 2007. "Savage Inequalities." Pp. 341-347 in Sociological Odyssey: Contemporary Readings in Introductory Sociology, edited by Patricia A. Adler and Peter Adler. Belmont: Thompson.