Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 68 references

Generalized Probability Theory: notes for a short course

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that generalized probabilistic theories are best understood as a conservative generalization of classical probability theory, and that the test-space framework, linearized through ordered vector spaces, is the most…

desk verdict A genuinely useful survey of GPTs from the Foulis–Randall angle, but Lemma 3.12 is provably false and the author needs to fix it. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00718 v2 pith:B2IYECJH submitted 2025-01-01 quant-ph

Alex Wilce This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81P1081P1646A40
keywords generalizedprobabilistictheoriestestspacesprobabilityweightsorderedvectoreffectalgebrasnon-signalingcompositesentanglementorthoalgebras
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that generalized probabilistic theories are best read as a conservative generalization of classical probability theory: the only real departure is dropping the tacit assumption that every pair of experiments can be performed jointly. It develops the test-space framework as the most flexible and expressive current formalism for such theories, and then shows how linearization in ordered vector spaces recovers the standard picture of states, effects, channels, and composites. If the notes are right, classical probability, quantum theory, and hypothetical post-quantum theories are not separate logical structures but instances of one generalized probability theory. Entanglement, in particular, turns out to be a generic feature of non-classical models rather than a specifically quantum phenomenon.

What carries the argument

The central object is a test space: a collection M of outcome-sets (tests), whose union X carries a designated convex set Ω of probability weights, with overlap of tests encoding which experiments can be performed jointly. All later structure—events, perspectivity, orthoalgebras, the ordered-vector-space linearization into a base-normed state space and an order-unit effect space, non-signaling composites, and finally probabilistic theories as functors from a symmetric monoidal category of systems into the category of models—is built from this object.

What would settle it

Construct a finite probabilistic model whose event-effects have a convex hull strictly inside $[0,u]$, with an explicit operational story showing that some effect outside that hull cannot be realized; then the full linearized model overstates the theory's possible predictions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a generalized probabilistic theory (GPT) is exactly a generalized probability theory, and that the test-space framework gives the soundest way to present it. A probabilistic model is a test space—a collection of outcome-sets called tests—together with a convex set of probability weights, and one passes from classical probability to GPTs simply by allowing tests to overlap instead of assuming all experiments are jointly performable. Linearization maps outcomes to effects in an order-unit space and states to a base-normed space, with channels as positive norm-decreasing maps; composites are governed by non-signaling and by the minimal and maximal tensor products of ordered vector spaces. The notes present classical Borel models, Hilbert and von Neumann models, and Boxworld as instances of this single framework, and identify entanglement, remote evaluation, and teleportation as generic linear-algebraic phenomena in it.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the no-restriction hypothesis: every effect in the interval $[0,u]$ of the order-unit space, and every decomposition of the unit into such effects, corresponds to a genuinely performable experiment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Classical probability, quantum theory, and post-quantum theories become special cases of one mathematical language, with Borel test spaces and Hilbert/von Neumann models as concrete instances.
  • Entanglement is not a quantum peculiarity: in any non-signaling composite of non-classical models, entangled states exist and pure marginals force product states.
  • Composite structure is not canonical: different physical theories choose different monoidal rules, and finite-dimensional locally tomographic composites are bracketed between the minimal and maximal tensor products.
  • Teleportation and remote evaluation reduce to conditioning and co-conditioning maps, so these protocols are available in post-quantum GPTs, not only in quantum theory.
  • Probabilistic theories are naturally functors from process-theoretic categories into the category of probabilistic models, which reconciles the GPT picture with categorical process theories.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the no-restriction hypothesis is not physically justified, the linearized model $D(V^*)$ is an ideal envelope of predictions rather than the theory itself; a natural next step, not undertaken in the notes, is a search for operationally motivated restrictions on the effect interval.
  • The compounding theorem for semi-classical test spaces suggests that non-classical logics are cheap to generate operationally, so the real content that distinguishes one GPT from another lies in its composite structure—a point the reconstruction literature could press further.
  • The notes' conjecture that the operational-theoretic construction yields a strong non-signaling composite, if proved, would make the category-based and test-space presentations of GPTs interchangeable.
  • Because teleportation's core is linear algebraic, one could search for minimal conditions on a composite—short of the isomorphism states cited in the notes—that still guarantee deterministic teleportation in a GPT.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a set of lecture notes, updated from a 2024 Perimeter Institute short course, that develops generalized probabilistic theories (GPTs) through the test-space framework of Foulis and Randall. It builds probabilistic models from test spaces and probability weights, passes to ordered vector spaces and effect algebras, discusses composite systems and non-signaling correlations, and then embeds the resulting structures in categorical and monoidal language. The central thesis is that GPTs are a conservative generalization of classical probability in which joint performability of all experiments is abandoned, and that the Foulis–Randall test-space formalism, suitably linearized, is a sound and flexible framework for classical, quantum, and post-quantum theories.

Significance. If corrected, these notes would be a valuable and unusually historically informed survey. The historical integration of Foulis–Randall test spaces with modern GPT language is a genuine strength, as are the self-contained appendices, especially the proof of the completeness theorem for V(A) in Appendix C, and the substantial set of exercises that lets readers verify claims. The paper also makes explicit conjectures and openly flags assumptions such as the no-restriction hypothesis, which is commendable. However, the manuscript contains a false mathematical claim in Section 3.3 that directly concerns the definition of non-signaling composites. Because the section presents that claim as a lemma and exercises its proof, the error is load-bearing and must be fixed before the notes can be considered reliable.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.3, Lemma 3.12] Lemma 3.12 is false as stated. The lemma claims that if π: ←→AB → C is a test-preserving morphism, then (C, π) is a non-signaling composite of A and B. Under Definition 3.10, a composite requires π_*(Ω(AB)) to contain all product states α⊗β. This condition is not implied by the lemma's hypothesis. A concrete counterexample: let A and B be full gbits, and let C have the same test space as ←→AB but with state space Ω(C) consisting of all non-signaling weights that assign probability at least ε>0 to every outcome. This set is closed, convex, positive, and separating, and it is nonempty for small ε. The identity map id: X(A)×X(B)→X(C) is test-preserving, and condition (iv) of Definition 1.21 holds because every β∈Ω(C) is already a non-signaling state, hence an element of Ω(A×NSB), so we may take t=1 and α=β. Yet id_*(Ω(C))=Ω(C) contains no deterministic product state α⊗β, since such states have zero-probability outcomes, whereas Definition 3.10 requires all product states to lie in π_*(Ω(AB)). Thus (C, id) is not a non-signaling composite. The lemma needs a corrected hypothesis or conclusion, and Exercise 44, which asks the reader to prove the false statement, must be revised accordingly.
  2. [§3.3, Definition 3.10 and surrounding examples] The failure of Lemma 3.12 also points to a mismatch between the definition of a composite and the route the notes take to verify it. Definition 3.10 requires a test-preserving morphism from A×NSB, not merely from the bilateral product ←→AB, and it requires explicit control of π_*(Ω(AB)) on product states. Examples 3.13 and 3.14 assert that classical and quantum composites are non-signaling; those assertions are true, but the text should verify the product-state condition directly rather than relying on the incorrect Lemma 3.12 as a general principle. This is a fixable local issue, but it is central to Section 3.3's development of composites.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Theorem 3.23] A literal '[?]' placeholder remains immediately before the statement of Theorem 3.23; it should be removed or replaced with a proper citation placeholder.
  2. [§1.2, Exercise 10] Exercise 10 lists conditions (i), (ii), and (iv) but skips (iii); the numbering should be corrected.
  3. [General typos] There are several typographical slips: 'th course' in the acknowledgements, 'restrct' in Example 1.8, 'digrams' in the Greechie diagram discussion, and 'cagegory' near the end of Section 4.4. These should be cleaned up in a revision.
  4. [§2.2, no-restriction hypothesis] The no-restriction hypothesis is explicitly and honestly flagged as an assumption with no physical or operational justification. Since the linearized representation in Section 2 depends on it, the notes should perhaps add a forward reference to where this assumption is later used, so readers can assess how much of the GPT linear framework rests on it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the notes are an expository survey whose claims are either stipulated definitions, standard theorems with independent published proofs, or explicitly flagged assumptions and open conjectures.

full rationale

The central aim is explicitly pedagogical: to give a unified and historically informed outline of GPTs, not to derive a new predictive result from hidden inputs. The definitions of test spaces, probability weights, models, morphisms, and composites are stipulated, and the main structural results are either proved in the text or attributed to published work outside the author's own papers. The no-restriction hypothesis is openly identified as an unproved assumption (Section 2.2: 'It is mathematically convenient to admit them all ... but as far as I know, no one has ever proposed a good physical or operational justification for doing so'), rather than being presented as a prediction. The unproved Conjecture at the end of Section 4.4 is explicitly labeled as not yet checked. Self-citations such as [58], [60], [64], and [65] appear as pointers to published peer-reviewed results, not as load-bearing premises that define the conclusion into existence; the notes even emphasize that composite models are not canonical and must be constructed theory-specifically. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported to forbid alternatives, and no ansatz smuggled in through a self-citation. The mathematical concern about Lemma 3.12 raised in the skeptic note concerns correctness of a stated lemma, not circularity: no equation is equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central framework rests on standing assumptions stated in the notes rather than on fitted data. No free parameters are fitted. The axioms listed are conveniences the author adopts: convexity and closedness of state spaces, positivity of models, Archimedean ordered spaces, point-separating states, the no-restriction hypothesis, finite-dimensionality for composites, and branching measurements/causality in the Pavian setting. The no-restriction hypothesis is the one the author himself flags as lacking physical justification.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Standing assumption: state spaces are always uniformly closed and convex.
    Section 1.1 imposes this to simplify the exposition; it excludes non-convex examples such as pure-state quantum mechanics and is needed for the base-normed linearization in Chapter 2.
  • domain assumption Standing assumption: all models have positive state spaces.
    Section 1.1; harmless after replacing X by X+, but limits the class of test spaces considered.
  • standard math Standing assumption: ordered vector spaces carry a locally convex Hausdorff topology with closed positive cone.
    Section 2.1; ensures Archimedean order and supports order-unit and base-norm duality.
  • ad hoc to paper No-restriction hypothesis for effects and tests.
    Section 2.2; all effects in [0,u] and all decompositions of the unit are treated as physical. The author says no physical or operational justification is known.
  • domain assumption Standing assumption in Chapter 2 that state spaces separate points.
    Section 2, just before Section 2.1; needed so that the map x to evaluation functional is injective and outcomes can be identified with effects.
  • domain assumption Composite models are assumed finite-dimensional except when noted.
    Section 3.4; tensor-product results and local tomography statements are proved only in finite dimensions.
  • domain assumption Pavian theories are assumed to allow branching measurements, hence to be causal.
    Section 4.4; the author adopts this 'From now on' after Lemma 4.15, and it is required for the state-space construction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalized Probability Theory: notes for a short course." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B2IYECJH

@misc{pith2026250100718,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalized Probability Theory: notes for a short course},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B2IYECJH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00718}
}
read the original abstract

A slightly revised version of notes distributed during a short course on GPTs, given at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in March and April of 2024.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abramky and B

    S. Abramky and B. Coecke, Categorical quantum mechanics, in K. Engesser D. Gabbay, and D. Lehman, Eds,Handbook of Quantum Logic and Quantum Struc- tures vol II, Elsevier, 2008;arXiv:0808.1023

    arXiv 2008

  2. [2]

    E. M. Alfsen,Compact Convex Sets and Boundary Integrals, Springer, 1971

    work page 1971

  3. [3]

    Alfsen and F

    E. Alfsen and F. Shultz,State Spaces of Operator Algebras, Birkhäuser, 2001

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    Alfsen and F

    E. Alfsen and F. Shultz, Geometry of State Spaces of Operator Algebras , Birkhäuser, 2003

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Aliprantis and D

    C. Aliprantis and D. Tourky,Cones and Duality, Springer, 2007

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Entangleability of cones

    T. Aubrun, L. Lami, C. Palazuelos and M. Plaávala, Entangleability of cones, Geom. Funct. Anal.31 (2021) arXiv:1911.09663

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Baez, Quantum quandaries, in S

    J. Baez, Quantum quandaries, in S. French, D. Rickles and J. Saatsi (Eds.)Struc- tural Foundations of Quantum GravityOxford, 2006; arXiv:quant-ph/0404040,

    arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Teleportation in General Probabilistic Theories

    H. Barnum, J. Barrett, M. Leifer, and A. Wilce, Teleportation in general prob- abilistic theories, in S. Abramsky and M. Mislove (Eds.),The Mathematics of Information Flow, Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics71, AMS, 2012 arXiv:0805.3553

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Barnum, C

    H. Barnum, C. Fuchs, J. Renes, and A. Wilce, Influence-free states on compound quantum systems, arXiv: quant-ph/0507108 , 2005

    2005 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Barnum, C

    H. Barnum, C. P. E. Gaebler and A. Wilce, Foundations of Physics43 (2013) arxiv.org/0912.5532

    2013 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Barnum, M

    H. Barnum, M. Graydon and A. Wilce, Categories and composites of euclidean Jordan algebras, Quantum4 (2020) arXiv:1606.09331

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Barnum and A

    H. Barnum and A. Wilce, Information processing in convex operational theories, in B. Coecke, I. Mackie P. Panangaden, and P. Selinger (Eds.),Proceedings of the Joint 5th International Workshop on Quantum Physics and Logic and 4th Work- shop on Developments in Computational Mod...

    2011 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Barnum and A

    H. Barnum and A. Wilce, Post-classical probability theory, in G. Chiribella and R. Spekkens, eds.,Quantum Theory: Informational Foundations and Foils, Springer, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Barrett, Information processing in generalized probabilistic theories, Physical Review A75 (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0508211

    J. Barrett, Information processing in generalized probabilistic theories, Physical Review A75 (2005) arXiv:quant-ph/0508211

    2005 arXiv

  7. [15]

    L. J. Bunce and J. D. Maitland-Wright, The Mackey-Gleason problem, Bull. Am. Math. Soc.26 (1992) 60

    1992

  8. [16]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano and P. Perinotti, Probabilistic theories with pu- rification, Phys. Rev. A80 (2009) arXiv:0908.1583

    2009 arXiv

  9. [17]

    G.Chiribella, M.D’ArianoandP.Perinotti, Informationalderivationofquantum theory, Phys. Rev. A84 (2011), arXiv:1011.6451

    2011 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Coecke, The logic of quantum mechanics - Take II, in J

    B. Coecke, The logic of quantum mechanics - Take II, in J. Chubb, A. Es- kandarian, and V. Harizonov (Eds.),Logic and Algebraic Structures in Quantum Computing, Cambridge, 2016 (arXiv:1204.3458)

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Coecke and A

    B. Coecke and A. Kissinger,Picturing Quantum Processes, Cambridge, 2017

    2017

  12. [20]

    Cook, Banach spaces of weights on quasimanuals, Int

    T. Cook, Banach spaces of weights on quasimanuals, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 1985

    1985

  13. [21]

    G. M. D’Ariano, G. Chiribella and P. Perinotti,Quantum Theory from First Principles, Cambridge 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    E. B. Davies and J. T. Lewis, An operational approach to quantum probability, Comm. Math. Phys.17 (1970)

    1970

  15. [23]

    Dunford and J

    N. Dunford and J. Schwartz,Linear Operators, Part I: General Theory, Wiley, 1988

    1988

  16. [24]

    C. M. Edwards, The operational approach to quantum probability, I. Comm.Math. Phys.16 (1970)

    1970

  17. [25]

    Fong and D

    B. Fong and D. Spivak, An Invitation to Applied Category Theory: Seven Sketches in Compositionality , Cambridge 2019 (available online as arXiv:1803.05316)

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Heunen and C

    C. Heunen and C. Vicary,Categories for Quantum Theory, Oxford, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    D. J. Foulis and M. K. Bennett, Effect algebras and unsharp quantum logics, Found. Phys.24 (1994)

    1994

  20. [28]

    Foulis and C

    D.J. Foulis and C. H. Randall, The empirical logic approach to the physical sci- ences, in A. Hartkämper an H Neumann (eds)Foundations of Quantum Mechanics and Ordered Linear Spaces(Lecture Notes in Physics, vol.29) Springer, 1974

    1974

  21. [29]

    D. J. Foulis and C. H. Randall, Empirical logic and tensor products, Proceedings of the Colloquium on the Interpretations and Foundations of Quantum Theories, Fachbereich Physik der Philipps Universität, Marburg, Germany (1979)

    1979

  22. [30]

    D. J. Foulis, R. Greechie, and G. Rüttimann, Filters and supports in orthoalge- bras, International Journal of Theoretical Physics31 (1992)

    1992

  23. [31]

    D. J. Foulis, R. Greechie, and G. Rüttimann, Logico-algebraic structures II: supports in test spaces, Int. J. Theor. Phys.32 (1993) 61

    1993

  24. [32]

    D. J. Foulis, C. Piron and C. H. Randall, Realism, operationalism, and quantum mechanics, Foundations of Physics13 (1983)

    1983

  25. [33]

    Gleason, Measures on the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space, J

    A. Gleason, Measures on the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space, J. Math. and Mech. 6 (1957)

    1957

  26. [34]

    Gross, M

    D. Gross, M. Müller, R. Colbeck, and O. Dahlsten, All reversible dynamics in maximally nonlocal theories are trivial, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 2010

    2010

  27. [35]

    Hardy, Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms (2001) arXiv:quant-ph/0101012

    L. Hardy, Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms (2001) arXiv:quant-ph/0101012

    2001 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Hardy, Foilable operational structures for general probabilistic theories, arXiv.org/pdf/0912.4740

    L. Hardy, Foilable operational structures for general probabilistic theories, arXiv.org/pdf/0912.4740

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Hardy, Reformulating and reconstructing quantum mechanics arXiv:quant-ph/1104.2066v3 (2011)

    L. Hardy, Reformulating and reconstructing quantum mechanics arXiv:quant-ph/1104.2066v3 (2011)

    2011 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Kelly and I

    J. Kelly and I. Namioka,Linear Topological Spaces, van Nostrand,

  31. [39]

    M.Kläy, D.J.FoulisandC.H.Randall, Tensorproductsandprobabilityweights, Int. J. Theor. Phys.26 (1987)

    1987

  32. [40]

    Kläy, Einstein-Podolski-Rosen exeriments I: the structure of the probability space I, II, Foundations of Physics Letters1 (1988)

    M. Kläy, Einstein-Podolski-Rosen exeriments I: the structure of the probability space I, II, Foundations of Physics Letters1 (1988)

    1988

  33. [41]

    Ludwig, Versuch einer axiomatischen Grundlegung der Quantenmechanikund allgemeinerer physikalischer Theorien

    G. Ludwig, Versuch einer axiomatischen Grundlegung der Quantenmechanikund allgemeinerer physikalischer Theorien. Z. Physik181 (1964); Attempt of an Ax- iomaticFoundationofQuantumMechanicsandMoreGeneralTheories, II,Comm. Math. Physics, Commun. math. Phys.4 (1967)

    1964

  34. [42]

    G. W. Mackey, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Addison- Wesley, 1957 (Reprinted by Dover)

    1957

  35. [43]

    Masanes and M

    Ll. Masanes and M. Müller, A derivation of quantum theory from physically reasonable requirements, NJP13 (2011), arXiv:1004.1483

    2011 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Mielnik, Theory of filters, Commun

    B. Mielnik, Theory of filters, Commun. math. Phys.15 (1969)

    1969

  37. [45]

    Namioka and R

    I. Namioka and R. Phelps, Tensor products of compact convex sets, Pacific. J. Math. 31 1969

    1969

  38. [46]

    Peressini,Ordered topological vector spaces, Harper and Row, 1967

    A. Peressini,Ordered topological vector spaces, Harper and Row, 1967

    1967

  39. [47]

    Plávala, General probabilistic theories: an introduction (2021) arXiv:2103.07469

    M. Plávala, General probabilistic theories: an introduction (2021) arXiv:2103.07469

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    C. H. Randall and D. J. Foulis, An approach to empirical logic, Am. Math. Monthly 77, 1970 62

    1970

  41. [49]

    C. H. Randall and D. J. Foulis, Tensor products of quantum logics do not exist, Notices Am. Math. Soc.26 (1979), A-557

    1979

  42. [50]

    C. H. Randall and D. J. Foulis, The operational approach to quantum mechanics, in C. A. Hooker (Ed.),Physical Theory as Logic-Operational Structure, University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science7, D. Reidel, 1979

    1979

  43. [51]

    C. H. Randall, M. Janowitz and D. J. Foulis, Orthomodular generalizations of homogeneous boolean algebras, J. Aust. Math. Soc.15 (1971)

    1971

  44. [52]

    Rau, Ann

    J. Rau, Ann. Phys.324 (2009), arXiv:0710.2119

    2009 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Riehl,Category Theory in Context, Dover 2016

    E. Riehl,Category Theory in Context, Dover 2016

    2016

  46. [54]

    Theory 17 (1974)

    F.W.Shulz, Acharacterizationofstatespacesoforthomodularlattices, J.Comb. Theory 17 (1974)

    1974

  47. [55]

    van Fraassen, One or two gentle remarks about Hans Halvorsen’s critique of the semantic view, Phil

    B. van Fraassen, One or two gentle remarks about Hans Halvorsen’s critique of the semantic view, Phil. Science81 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    R.Werner, QuantumstateswithEinstein-Podolsky-Rosencorrelationsadmitting a hidden-variable model, Physical Review A.40 (1989)

    1989

  49. [57]

    Wigner, comment during a conversation with Randall and Foulis in Amherst, ca 1978; D

    E. Wigner, comment during a conversation with Randall and Foulis in Amherst, ca 1978; D. J. Foulis, personal communication

    1978

  50. [58]

    Wilce, Tensor products in generalized measure theory, Int

    A. Wilce, Tensor products in generalized measure theory, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 31 (1992)

    1992

  51. [59]

    Wilce, Quantum logic and probability theory, Stanford Encyclopedia of Phi- losophy, 2002

    A. Wilce, Quantum logic and probability theory, Stanford Encyclopedia of Phi- losophy, 2002

    2002

  52. [60]

    Wilce, Test Spaces, in H

    A. Wilce, Test Spaces, in H. Engesser, D. Gabbay and D. Lehmann, eds.,Hand- book of Quantum Logic and Quantum Structures, North Holland,

  53. [61]

    Wilce, A royal road to quantum theory (or thereabouts), Entropy20 (2018), arXiv:1606.09306

    A. Wilce, A royal road to quantum theory (or thereabouts), Entropy20 (2018), arXiv:1606.09306

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Wilce, Conjugates, filters, and quantum mechanics, Quantum 3 (2019), arXiv:1206.2897v8

    A. Wilce, Conjugates, filters, and quantum mechanics, Quantum 3 (2019), arXiv:1206.2897v8

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Wilce, Symmetry and composition in probabilistic theories, ENTCS 270 (2011) arXiv:0910.1527.v2

    A. Wilce, Symmetry and composition in probabilistic theories, ENTCS 270 (2011) arXiv:0910.1527.v2

    2011 arXiv

  56. [64]

    A. Wilce, A shortcut from categorical quantum mechanics to generalized prob- abilistic theories, in Bob Coecke and Aleks Kissinger (Eds.): 14th Interna- tional Conference on Quantum Physics and Logic (QPL), EPTCS266 (2018) arXiv:1803.00707

    2018 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Wilce, Coarse-graining and compounding as monads,arXiv:2410.08818 63

    A. Wilce, Coarse-graining and compounding as monads,arXiv:2410.08818 63

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Wittstock, Ordered normed tensor products, in A

    G. Wittstock, Ordered normed tensor products, in A. Hartkämper and H. Neu- mann (Eds.), Foundations of Quantum Mechanics and Ordered Linear Spaces, Lecture Notes in Physics29, Springer, 1974

    1974

  59. [67]

    Wright, Spin manuals: empirical logic talks quantum mechanics, in A

    R. Wright, Spin manuals: empirical logic talks quantum mechanics, in A. R. Marlow, ed.,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory, Academic Press 1978

    1978

  60. [68]

    unit ball

    J. von Neumann,Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 1937; En- glish translation Princeton, 1957. A State of the Ensembles Recall that ifK is a convex set, a finiteensemble for K is a finitely-supported probability weight (or distribution) onK, which we can represent ...

    1937

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.