Paper detail

The Equivalence between Hardy-type paradox and Logical Contextuality

Hardy-type paradoxes offer elegant, inequality-free proof of quantum contextuality. In this work, we introduce a unified logical formulation for general Hardy-type paradoxes, which we term logical Hardy-type paradoxes. We prove that for any finite scenario, the existence of a logical Hardy-type paradox is equivalent to logical contextuality. Specially, strong contextuality is equivalent to logical Hardy-type paradoxes with success probability SP = 1. These results generalize prior work on (2,k,2), (2,2,d), and n-cycle scenarios, and resolve a misconception that such equivalence does not hold for general scenarios [1]. We analyse the logical Hardy-type paradoxes on the (2,2,2) and (2,3,3) Bell scenarios, as well as the Klyachko-Can-Binicioglu-Shumovsky (KCBS) scenario. We show that the KCBS scenario admits only one kind of Hardy-type paradox, achieving a success probability of SP \approx 10.56% for a specific parameter setting.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.