no_signaling_reasons
plain-language theorem explainer
The declaration enumerates four physical constraints that keep quantum correlations nonlocal while blocking faster-than-light signaling. A researcher examining Bell violations or quantum foundations would cite it to separate shared randomness from communication in ledger models. The definition simply assembles the list of reasons: random outcomes, marginal independence, classical verification requirement, and read-only ledger access.
Claim. The list of reasons that prevent signaling in entangled systems: Alice's measurement outcome is chosen randomly; Bob's marginal statistics remain independent of Alice's choice; correlation verification requires classical communication; the shared ledger entry is read-only during measurement.
background
The module QF-006 treats nonlocality without signaling as a direct consequence of ledger consistency. Entangled pairs share ledger entries that enforce global correlations, yet each party accesses its local entry without altering the distant marginal. Upstream ledger factorization calibrates the J-cost on the positive reals, while independent spatial semantics ensure voxels evolve without neighbor interaction, preserving local read access.
proof idea
The definition is a direct enumeration of the four constraints. It assembles randomness of outcomes, statistical independence of marginals, necessity of classical verification, and read-only ledger property into a single list for reference in the surrounding no-signaling theorem.
why it matters
This definition supplies the concrete reasons supporting the no-signaling theorem and ledger_explains_nonlocality in the same module. It fills the explanatory step in QF-006 by listing how ledger consistency permits nonlocal correlations (via T5 J-uniqueness and T7 eight-tick octave) while forbidding signaling. It closes the gap between Bell violation and no-communication.
Switch to Lean above to see the machine-checked source, dependencies, and usage graph.