For Example 2 / Prop 35, would this model also work?
Define to be the factor corresponding to the question "are the second and third bits equal or not?" Then is a model of . I believe this is consistent with :
For :
We have and for the first condition.
We have and for the second condition.
We have and for the third condition.
For .
We have for the first and second conditions.
We have for the third condition.
I think that works, I didn't look very hard. Yore histories of X given Y and V given Y are wrong, but it doesn't change the conclusion.
Yeah, also note that the history of given is not actually a well defined concept. There is only the history of given for . You could define it to be the union of all of those, but that would not actually be used in the definition of orthogonality. In this case , , and are all independent of choice of , but in general, you should be careful about that.