1 hour ago, swansont said:

Plus the faulty syllogism (that mathematicians generalize some things, does not imply all mathematicians generalize all things)

If I wanted to be picky I would point out that I did not say S would generalise the statement I said he would be happy to see it generalised, which has a totally different meaning.

However I will be content with pointing out that S spoke in the light of knowledge available in 1935.
Do we not know more today ?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

The description is of the system before measurement, before you know the state of a particular electron. 

That doesn't address my comment which pointed out that Wiki is stating compulsion.

If you know one, you don't need to know the other.
The fact that in this case you automatically do know it (ie the information is available) is surely because of entanglement, but you are not required to find it out explicily.

 

 

Edited November 1, 20214 yr by studiot

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

If you know one, you don't need to know the other.

But you don't know one, unless you've measured it.

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

But you don't know one, unless you've measured it.

So what ?

Wiki says you can't know (or presumably measure) one without also 'considering' the other.

44 minutes ago, studiot said:

So what ?

Wiki says you can't know (or presumably measure) one without also 'considering' the other.

I assume you are referring to the statement "In entanglement, one constituent cannot be fully described without considering the other(s)" which is because you need to write the wave function in terms of the entangled superposition, rather than the separable individual wave functions.

If you can write it as |s₁>|s₂> you can focus on just one of them. But if it's |s₁s₂> you can't.