In quantum physics, the term 'contextual' can be used in more than one way. One usage, here called 'Bell contextual' since the idea goes back to Bell, is that if A, B and C are three quantum observables, with A compatible (i.e. commuting) with B and also with C, whereas B and C are incompatible, a measurement of A might yield a different result (indicating that quantum mechanics is contextual) depending upon whether A is measured along with B (the {A, B} context) or with C (the {A, C} context). An analysis of what projective quantum measurements measure shows that quantum theory is Bell non-contextual: the outcome of a particular A measurement when A is measured along with B would have been exactly the same if A had, instead, been measured along with C. A different definition, here called 'globally (non)contextual' refers to whether or not there is (non-contextual) or is not (contextual) a single joint probability distribution that simultaneously assigns probabilities in a consistent manner to the outcomes of measurements of a certain collection of observables, not all of which are compatible. A simple example shows that such a joint probability distribution can exist even in a situation where the measurement probabilities cannot refer to properties of a quantum system, and hence lack physical significance, even though mathematically well defined. It is noted that the quantum sample space, a projective decomposition of the identity, required for interpreting measurements of incompatible properties in different runs of an experiment using different types of apparatus, has a tensor product structure, a fact sometimes overlooked. This article is part of the theme issue 'Contextuality and probability in quantum mechanics and beyond'.
Keywords: Bell; contextual; incompatible properties; measurement; quantum sample space.