🚀 go-pugleaf

Wasn't it Eraser who wrote:
>Something like this was used to explain quantum entanglement 
>in a book by Julian Brown called, Quest for the Quantum Computer:
>
>A single black box has:
>   an on-off switch, 
>   a dial with six positions, 
>   one red and one green light, 
>   a counter which counts how many times the box was turned on. 
>To operate the box, randomly select any dial position 
>and then switch the box "on". Note which light turns on, 
>red or green. Then switch the box "off". The color of 
>the light that gets turned on is guarranteed to always be 
>completely random. There is a 50:50 chance for either 
>the red or green light coming on, regardless of 
>whether the dial's position was changed or not.
>
>Now whenever two such black boxes have been switched "on" 
>the same number of times, they will have the same counter number.
>Then, they will both show the same color light if their dial 
>positions are the same. But whenever the dial on one of the 
>two boxes is in a position opposite to the position of the 
>dial of  the other box, the color of the two box's lights 
>will be different (one will be red and the other will be green).
>And whenever the dial on one of the two boxes is in 
>a position adjacent to the dial position of the other box, 
>the color of the two box's lights will be the same on average
>3/4ths of the time.
>
>Two such black boxes can be said to be 'entangled'.
>
>Can they be physically manufactured without the 
>ability to send information between them?  

It's easy to design such a system where adjacent positions give the same
colour light 2/3 of the time rather than 3/4. 

To achieve 3/4, I reckon that you have to have a dial with 8 positions.

-- 
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure