Tsirelson’s problem had a positive answer

[GoodTaste]

Does "a positive answer" mean the answer offered by Vidick will be confirmed (Vidick's answer is "no" and this "no" will be proved correct).

The problem for me is that "a positive answer" seems to be Yes. So the expression appears to explained in two exactly opposite ways.

---------------------
In a 1976 paper3, using the language of operators, Connes asked whether quantum systems with infinitely many measurable variables could be approximated by simpler systems that have a finite number.


But the paper by Vidick and collaborators shows that the answer is no: there are, in principle, quantum systems that cannot be approximated by ‘finite’ ones. According to work by physicist Boris Tsirelson4, who reformulated the problem, this also means that it is impossible to calculate the amount of correlation that two such systems can display across space when entangled.


Disparate fields
The proof has come as a surprise to much of the community. “I was sure that Tsirelson’s problem had a positive answer,” wrote Araújo in his comments, adding that the result shook his basic conviction that “Nature is in some vague sense fundamentally finite.”

Source: Nature --- https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00120-6

 

[jutfrank]

The phrase a positive answer means a yes. Araujo expected a yes but the paper by Vidick shows a no. That's why he was surprised.

 

[Tarheel]

You seem to have answered your own question.

First:

But the paper by Vidick and collaborators shows that the answer is no.

Then:

Arujo says (in disappointment), "I was sure that Tsirelson's problem had a positive answer."

Am I wrong?

 

[GoodTaste]

A Yes to No and a Yes to Yes are starkly different. That is why it appeared contradictory to me.

Now the situation is clear.