# Quantum Theory and Probability Theory: Their Relationship and Origin in Symmetry

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

- (a)
- Amplitude Sum Rule: If a system classically can take $n>1$ possible paths from ${E}_{i}$ to ${E}_{f}$, but the experimental apparatus does not permit one to determine which path was taken, then the total amplitude, z, for the transition from ${E}_{i}$ to ${E}_{f}$ is given by the sum of the amplitudes, ${z}_{k}$, associated with these paths, so that $z={\sum}_{k=1}^{n}{z}_{k}$;
- (b)
- Amplitude Product Rule: If the transition from ${E}_{i}$ to ${E}_{f}$ takes place via intermediate event ${E}_{m}$, the total amplitude, u, is given by the product of the amplitudes, ${u}^{\prime}$ and ${u}^{\u2033}$, for the transitions ${E}_{i}\to {E}_{m}$ and ${E}_{m}\to {E}_{f}$, respectively, so that $u={u}^{\prime}{u}^{\u2033}$; and
- (c)
- Probability-Amplitude Rule: The probability, ${p}_{{E}_{i}\to {E}_{f}}$, of the transition from ${E}_{i}$ to ${E}_{f}$ is equal to the modulus-squared of the total amplitude, z, for the transition, so that ${p}_{{E}_{i}\to {E}_{f}}={\left|z\right|}^{2}$.

- Operational Framework: First, we establish a fully operational framework in which to describe measurements performed upon physical systems. The framework allows the results of an experiment to be described in purely operational terms by simply stating which sequence of measurements was performed and what were their results. In particular, any metaphysical speculations or physical pictures about how a system behaves between measurements (such as imagining “classical paths” of a “particle” between initial and final position measurements as envisaged in Feynman’s rules) is eschewed.
- Experimental Logic: Second, we identify an experimental logic in which parallel and series operators can be used to combine together sequences of measurement outcomes obtained in experiments. These measurement sequences list the outcomes obtained when a sequence of measurements are performed on a physical system. The action of applying the logical parallel and series operators allows us to formally relate the results of different experiments. The logic itself is characterized by five symmetries that are induced by the operational definition of these operators.
- Process Calculus: Third, we represent these measurement sequences with pairs of real numbers, this choice of representation being inspired by the principle of complementarity articulated by Bohr [12]. This representation induces a pair-valued calculus characterized by a set of functional equations, which are then solved to yield the possible forms of the two pair operators which correspond to the parallel and series sequence operators.
- Connection with Probability Theory: Fourth, and finally, we associate a logical proposition with each measurement sequence, and postulate that the pair associated with each sequence determines the probability of this proposition. We further require that (a) the calculus be consistent with probability theory when applied to series-combined sequences, and (b) when applied to parallel-combined sequences, the maximum and minimum values of the probabilistic predictions of the calculus are placed symmetrically about what one would predict using probability theory on the assumption that these sequences are probabilistically independent (an assumption which follows from classical physics). The resulting calculus—which we refer to as the process calculus—coincides with Feynman’s rules of quantum theory.

## 2. Symmetries in Probability Theory

**C**= “it is cloudy” implies the statement

**R**= “it is raining”, $Pr\left(\mathbf{R}\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}\right|\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}\mathbf{C})$, should be equal to the degree to which the statement (

**C**,

**E**) = “it is cloudy, and eggplants are purple” implies the statement (

**R**,

**E**) = “it is raining, and eggplants are purple”, denoted $Pr\left(\right)open="("\; close=")">(\mathbf{R},\mathbf{E})\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}\left|\phantom{\rule{0.166667em}{0ex}}\right(\mathbf{C},\mathbf{E})$.

## 3. Feynman’s Rules of Quantum Theory

**A**= “Electron is emitted from A at time t_{1}”**B**= “Electron passes through the union of the space occupied by slits B_{1}and B_{2}at time t_{2}”**C**= “Electron is detected at given cell at C at time t_{3}”

**B**_{1}= “Electron passes through slit B_{1}at time t_{2}”**B**_{2}= “Electron passes through slit B_{2}at time t_{2}”

## 4. Derivation of Feynman’s Rules

#### 4.1. Operational Experimental Framework

#### 4.2. Sequence Combination Operators

**process calculus**—that is capable of establishing a relation between the probabilities observed in experimental set-ups such as those in Figure 2 and Figure 3. For example, in a run of the first experiment, one might observe the sequences $A=[1,1,1]$ or $B=[1,2,1]$, while, in a run of the second experiment, one might observe $C=[1,(1,2),2]$. The calculus should provide a relationship between the probabilities $P\left(A\right)$, $P\left(B\right)$ and $P\left(C\right)$ associated with these sequences.

#### 4.3. Pair Representation of Sequences

#### 4.4. Probabilities, and the Probability Product Equation

- Case C1: $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)={\left(\right)}^{{a}_{1}^{2}}\alpha /2$;
- Case C2: $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)=|{a}_{1}{|}^{\alpha}{e}^{\beta {a}_{2}/{a}_{1}}$;
- Case C3: $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)=|{a}_{1}{|}^{\alpha}{\left|{a}_{2}\right|}^{\beta}$;
- Case N1: $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)=|{a}_{1}{|}^{\alpha}$;
- Case N2: $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)=|{a}_{1}{|}^{\alpha}$;

#### 4.5. Pair Symmetry

#### 4.6. Independent Parallel Processes

**Additivity Condition:**For any given probabilities ${p}_{1}$ and ${p}_{2}$ for which ${p}_{1}+{p}_{2}\le 1$, there exist pairs $\mathbf{a}$ and $\mathbf{b}$ satisfying $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)={p}_{1},p\left(\mathbf{b}\right)={p}_{2}$ such that Equation (76) (which we shall henceforth refer to as the additivity equation) holds true whenever $p(\mathbf{a}+\mathbf{b})\le 1$.

#### 4.7. Case (C1), with $p\left(\mathbf{x}\right)={({x}_{1}^{2}+{x}_{2}^{2})}^{\alpha /2}$

## 4.8. Symmetric Bias

**Symmetric Bias Condition [25]:**For any given probabilities ${p}_{1}$ and ${p}_{2}$ for which ${p}_{1}+{p}_{2}\le 1$, there exist pairs $\mathbf{a}$ and $\mathbf{b}$ satisfying $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)={p}_{1},p\left(\mathbf{b}\right)={p}_{2}$ such that ${\beta}_{+}={\beta}_{-}$ holds true whenever $p(\mathbf{a}+\mathbf{b})\le 1$.

## 5. Summary

- As shown on the right hand side of the diagram, statements $\mathbf{A}$, $\mathbf{B}$, and $\mathbf{C}$ are all atomic; in particular, $\mathbf{C}$ cannot be obtained from $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ by means of any Boolean logical operations.
- In probability theory unfettered by additional constraints, the probabilities of the atomic statements $\mathbf{A}$, $\mathbf{B}$, and $\mathbf{C}$ would be freely assignable (see Section 2). However, additional constraints do exist, as a result of which these probabilities are not freely assignable. More precisely, (i) due to the amplitude sum rule operative in the pair space, the pair representing sequence C is determined by the pairs representing A and B and (ii) due to the postulated connection between the sequence space and the statement space, the probability of $\mathbf{C}$ is determined by the pairs representing sequences A and B. That is, once ${z}_{1}$ and ${z}_{2}$ are fixed, the probabilities of not only propositions $\mathbf{A}$, $\mathbf{B}$, but also proposition $\mathbf{C}$, are determined.
- In the statement space, the probability of proposition $\mathbf{C}$ is not independent of the probabilities of propositions $\mathbf{A}$, $\mathbf{B}$, but, on the other hand, is not determined by them either. The lee-way that exists in the probability of $\mathbf{C}$ even after the probabilities of $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ have been fixed arises because these three probabilities are determined through three independent degrees of freedom, namely $|{z}_{1}|$, $|{z}_{2}|$, and $arg({z}_{1}/{z}_{2})$, in pair space.
- In the statement space, one can construct the statement $\mathbf{A}\vee \mathbf{B}$ from $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ using the Boolean OR operation. The probability of $\mathbf{A}\vee \mathbf{B}$ is determined by the sum rule of probability theory that is operative in the probability space (which, in turn, results from the associative symmetry of the logical OR operation). In particular, statement $\mathbf{A}\vee \mathbf{B}$ is not the same as $\mathbf{C}$.
- The application of probability theory alone does not predict any quantitative relation between the probabilities of $\mathbf{A}\vee \mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{C}$. If one adds the appropriate assumption from classical physics, then these two propositions can be equated, which implies that the probability of $\mathbf{C}$ is given by the probability of $\mathbf{A}\vee \mathbf{B}$. Feynman’s rules posit an alternative set of assumptions (which we have explicitly identified in the process of deriving Feynman’s rules), which lead to the assignment of different probabilities to these two propositions.

#### 5.1. Real Quantum Theory

## 6. Conclusions

## Acknowledgements

## References and Notes

- Feynman, R.P. Space-time approach to non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys.
**1948**, 20, 367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cox, R.T. Probability, frequency, and reasonable expectation. Am. J. Phys.
**1946**, 14, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cox, R.T. The Algebra of Probable Inference; The Johns Hopkins Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1961. [Google Scholar]
- Kolmogorov, A.N. Foundations of Probability Theory; Julius Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1933. [Google Scholar]
- Boole, G. An Investigation of the Laws of Thought; Macmillan: London, UK, 1854. [Google Scholar]
- Knuth, K.H. Deriving laws from ordering relations. In Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, Proceedings of 23rd International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering; Erickson, G.J., Zhai, Y., Eds.; American Institute of Physics: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 204–235. [Google Scholar]
- Knuth, K.H. Measuring on lattices. In Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, Proceedings of 23rd International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering; Goggans, P., Chan, C.Y., Eds.; American Institute of Physics: New York, NY, USA, 2004; Volume 707, pp. 132–144. [Google Scholar]
- Knuth, K.H. Valuations on lattices and their application to information theory. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, Vancouver, Canada, July 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Knuth, K.H. Lattice duality: The origin of probability and entropy. Neurocomputing
**2005**, 67C, 245–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Knuth, K.H.; Skilling, J. The foundations of inference. Available online: http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.4831 (accessed on 27 April 2011).
- Goyal, P.; Knuth, K.H.; Skilling, J. Origin of complex quantum amplitudes and feynman’s rules. Phys. Rev. A
**2010**, A81, 022109:01–022109:12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bohr, N. Causality and complementarity. Philos. Sci.
**1937**, 4, 289–298. [Google Scholar] - Aczél, J. Lectures on Functional Equations and Their Applications; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1966. [Google Scholar]
- Readers familiar with lattice (order) theory, will observe that bivaluations represent a generalization of the zeta function [31,32], which is an indicator function for the Boolean lattice where
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathsf{\zeta}(\mathbf{X},\text{}\mathbf{Y})=1& \mathrm{when}& \mathbf{X}\to \mathbf{Y}\\ \mathsf{\zeta}(\mathbf{X},\text{}\mathbf{Y})=0& & \mathrm{otherwise}\end{array}$$
- Schroedinger, E. Quantisation as an eigenvalue problem. Ann. Phys.
**1926**, 79, 361–376. [Google Scholar] - Heisenberg, W. Quantum-theoretical re-interpretation of kinematic and mechanical relations. Z. Phys.
**1925**, 33, 879–893, Translation in [33]. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Dirac, P. Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 4th ed.; Oxford Science Publications: Oxford, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- von Neumann, J. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1955. [Google Scholar]
- In practice, one would probably use a single Geiger counter to detect the electrons falling on a small patch of the screen, and then move the detector over the screen to build up the intensity pattern over the screen. However, in this thought-experiment, we help ourselves to more sophisticated equipment.
- The resolution time of a detector is the smallest interval of time between two incident electrons for which two distinct output pulses will be obtained from the detector.
- Alternatively, we can replace the single wire-loop detector at B with two finer-grained detectors, one placed in front of each of the slits, which are capable of indicating passage through one slit or the other.
- We remark that, in the deBroglie–Bohm interpretation of quantum theory, the model of an electron has two distinct components: (i) a discrete entity (an “indicator particle”), and (ii) a delocalized wave, which determines the motion of the discrete entity. Since the “electron” does not consist solely of a highly localized object in such a hybrid model, one would not infer that proposition
**B**implies**B**_{1}∨**B**_{2}, and one would therefore not infer Equation (52). If, instead, one were to redefine the**B**_{i}to refer to the indicator particle alone, one could infer (52), but one would not be able to infer that Pr(**C**,**B**_{1}|**A**) is unaffected by the closure of slit B_{2}(as the closure of B_{2}would be expected to affect the wave component), and hence one could not subject Equation (52) to the experimental test given above. Thus, in either interpretation of the**B**_{i}, the de Broglie–Bohm model of an electron would not be ruled out by the experimental test mentioned above. - In this model, the electron waves are taken to move at speed, v, at which speed particle-like electrons would be expected to move, with the wavelength of the waves set equal to the de Broglie wavelength of the electrons which, for v ≪ c, is λ = h/mv, where h is Planck’s constant, and m is the mass of the electron.
- As mentioned in the Introduction, our choice of representation is inspired by Bohr’s principle of complementarity. We are investigating other ways of understanding the origin of the pair representation.
- This condition is inspired by another condition suggested by J. Skilling in discussion with one of us.
- Birkhoff, G.; von Neumann, J. The logic of quantum mechanics. Ann. Math.
**1936**, 37, 823–843. [Google Scholar] - Gudder, S. Quantum Probability; Academic Press: London, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Busemeyer, J.R.; Wang, Z.; Townsend, J.T. Quantum dynamics of human decision making. J. Math. Psychol.
**2006**, 50, 220–241. [Google Scholar] - Pothos, E.M.; Busemeyer, J.R. A quantum probability model explanation for violations of “rational” decision theory. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B
**2009**, 276, 2171–2178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Knuth, K.H.; Bahreyni, N. A derivation of special relativity from causal sets. Available online: http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4172 (accessed on 27 April 2011).
- Rota, G.C. On the foundations of combinatorial theory I. Theory of Möbius functions. Prob. Theor. and Related Fields
**1964**, 2, 340–368. [Google Scholar] - Knuth, K.H. Deriving Laws from Ordering Relations. In Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering in Science and Engineering, Proceedings of 23rd International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering; Erickson, G.J., Zhai, Y., Eds.; American Institute of Physics: New York, NY, USA, 2003; Volume 707, pp. 204–235. [Google Scholar]
- van der Waerden, B.L. Sources of Quantum Mechanics; Dover Publications: New York, NY, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 1.**Sketch of the double-slit experiment. On the left, a heated electrical filament serves as an electron source. Electrons emerging from the filament are collimated, and are detected as they pass through a wire-loop detector. The electrons then encounter a screen, B, containing two slits, and the electrons that pass B are registered by another wire-loop detector. Finally, the electrons that pass through B will be detected on the screen on the right-hand side.

**Figure 2.**An experimental set-up consisting of three successive measurements, each of which has two possible outcomes. In a particular run of the experiment, the measurement outcome sequence $[1,1,1]$ is obtained.

**Figure 3.**An experimental set-up consisting of three measurements in which the second measurement is coarse-grained. In a particular run of the experiment, the sequence $[1,(1,2),1]$ is obtained.

**Figure 4.**Illustration of the overall logical structure of the process calculus. On the top left is the space of sequences. To each sequence, A, corresponds a conditional statement, $\mathbf{A}$ (top right). Each sequence is represented by a pair, $\mathbf{a}$ (bottom left), while each conditional statement is represented by a probability, $Pr\left(\mathbf{A}\right)$ (bottom right). The link between these representations, $Pr\left(\mathbf{A}\right)=p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)$, is given on the bottom right.

**Figure 5.**For $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)=p\left(\mathbf{b}\right)=1/8$, this graph shows, as a function of $\alpha $, (i) the extreme values of $p(\mathbf{a}+\mathbf{b})$, and (ii) the value of $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)+p\left(\mathbf{b}\right)=1/4$. For $\alpha <1$, the maximum of $p(\mathbf{a}+\mathbf{b})$ is less than $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)+p\left(\mathbf{b}\right)$.

**Figure 6.**For $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)=p\left(\mathbf{b}\right)=1/8$, this graph shows, as a function of $\alpha $, (i) the extreme values of $p(\mathbf{a}+\mathbf{b})$, and (ii) the value of $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)+p\left(\mathbf{b}\right)=1/4$. For $\alpha <1/2$, the maximum of $p(\mathbf{a}+\mathbf{b})$ is less than $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)+p\left(\mathbf{b}\right)$.

**Figure 7.**Graphs (a) and (b) show, as a function of $\alpha $ for the indicated values of $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)$ and $p\left(\mathbf{b}\right)$, (i) the extreme values of $p(\mathbf{a}+\mathbf{b})$, (ii) the average of these extrema, and (iii) the value of $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)+p\left(\mathbf{b}\right)$. In both cases, the average of the extrema coincides with the value of $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)+p\left(\mathbf{b}\right)$ only when $\alpha =2$.

**Figure 8.**Graphs (a) and (b) show, as a function of $\alpha $ for the indicated values of $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)$ and $p\left(\mathbf{b}\right)$, (i) the extreme values of $p(\mathbf{a}+\mathbf{b})$, (ii) the average of these extrema, and (iii) the value of $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)+p\left(\mathbf{b}\right)$. The average of the extrema coincides with the value of $p\left(\mathbf{a}\right)+p\left(\mathbf{b}\right)$ at different values of $\alpha $ in the two graphs.

**Figure 9.**A diagram illustrating the connection between the space of measurement sequences and the space of statements. On the left hand side, the sequences A and B are combined together in parallel to generate sequence $C=A\vee B$. If amplitudes ${z}_{1}$ and ${z}_{2}$ represent sequences A and B, respectively, then, by the amplitude sum rule, amplitude ${z}_{1}+{z}_{2}$ represents sequence C. On the right hand side, corresponding to the sequences A, B, and C are the atomic statements $\mathbf{A}$, $\mathbf{B}$ and $\mathbf{C}$, with probabilities $|{z}_{1}{|}^{2}$, $|{z}_{2}{|}^{2}$, and $|{z}_{1}+{z}_{2}{|}^{2}$, respectively. Note that the probability associated with $\mathbf{C}$ is not freely assignable due to the postulated connection between the two spaces. Also shown is the statement $\mathbf{A}\vee \mathbf{B}$, which is distinct from $\mathbf{C}$, and which has probability $|{z}_{1}{|}^{2}+{\left|{z}_{2}\right|}^{2}$ determined by the sum rule of probability theory.

Unary Operation | |

Complementation | $\mathrm{NOT}\phantom{\rule{3.33333pt}{0ex}}\equiv \phantom{\rule{3.33333pt}{0ex}}\neg $ |

Complementation 1 | $\mathbf{A}\wedge \neg \mathbf{A}\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}\perp $ |

Complementation 2 | $\mathbf{A}\vee \neg \mathbf{A}\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}\top $ |

Idempotency | $\mathbf{A}\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}\neg \neg \mathbf{A}$ |

Binary Operations | |

Disjunction | $\mathrm{OR}\phantom{\rule{3.33333pt}{0ex}}\equiv \phantom{\rule{3.33333pt}{0ex}}\vee $ |

Conjunction | $\mathrm{AND}\phantom{\rule{3.33333pt}{0ex}}\equiv \phantom{\rule{3.33333pt}{0ex}}\wedge $ |

Idempotency | $\mathbf{A}\vee \mathbf{A}\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}\mathbf{A}$ |

$\mathbf{A}\wedge \mathbf{A}\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}\mathbf{A}$ | |

Commutativity | $\mathbf{A}\vee \mathbf{B}\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}\mathbf{B}\vee \mathbf{A}$ |

$\mathbf{A}\wedge \mathbf{B}\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}\mathbf{B}\wedge \mathbf{A}$ | |

Associativity | $\mathbf{A}\vee (\mathbf{B}\vee \mathbf{C})\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}(\mathbf{A}\vee \mathbf{B})\vee \mathbf{C}$ |

$\mathbf{A}\wedge (\mathbf{B}\wedge \mathbf{C})\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}(\mathbf{A}\wedge \mathbf{B})\wedge \mathbf{C}$ | |

Absorption | $\mathbf{A}\vee (\mathbf{A}\wedge \mathbf{B})\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}\mathbf{A}\wedge (\mathbf{A}\vee \mathbf{B})\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}\mathbf{A}$ |

Distributivity | $\mathbf{A}\wedge (\mathbf{B}\vee \mathbf{C})\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}(\mathbf{A}\wedge \mathbf{B})\vee (\mathbf{A}\wedge \mathbf{C})$ |

$\mathbf{A}\vee (\mathbf{B}\wedge \mathbf{C})\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}(\mathbf{A}\vee \mathbf{B})\wedge (\mathbf{A}\vee \mathbf{C})$ | |

De Morgan 1 | $\neg \mathbf{A}\wedge \neg \mathbf{B}\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}\neg (\mathbf{A}\vee \mathbf{B})$ |

De Morgan 2 | $\neg \mathbf{A}\vee \neg \mathbf{B}\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.277778em}{0ex}}\neg (\mathbf{A}\wedge \mathbf{B})$ |

Consistency | |

$\mathbf{A}\to \mathbf{B}\phantom{\rule{1.em}{0ex}}\iff \phantom{\rule{1.em}{0ex}}\mathbf{A}\wedge \mathbf{B}=\mathbf{A}\phantom{\rule{1.em}{0ex}}\iff \phantom{\rule{1.em}{0ex}}\mathbf{A}\vee \mathbf{B}=\mathbf{B}$ |

© 2011 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Goyal, P.; Knuth, K.H.
Quantum Theory and Probability Theory: Their Relationship and Origin in Symmetry. *Symmetry* **2011**, *3*, 171-206.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym3020171

**AMA Style**

Goyal P, Knuth KH.
Quantum Theory and Probability Theory: Their Relationship and Origin in Symmetry. *Symmetry*. 2011; 3(2):171-206.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym3020171

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Goyal, Philip, and Kevin H. Knuth.
2011. "Quantum Theory and Probability Theory: Their Relationship and Origin in Symmetry" *Symmetry* 3, no. 2: 171-206.
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym3020171