Inevitability of knowing less than nothing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A colloquial interpretation of entropy is that it is the knowledge gained upon learning the outcome of a random experiment. Conditional entropy is then interpreted as the knowledge gained upon learning the outcome of one random experiment after learning the outcome of another, possibly statistically dependent, random experiment. In the classical world, entropy and conditional entropy take only non-negative values, consistent with the intuition that one has regarding the aforementioned interpretations. However, for certain entangled states, one obtains negative values when evaluating commonly accepted and information-theoretically justified formulas for the quantum conditional entropy, leading to the confounding conclusion that one can know less than nothing in the quantum world. Here, we introduce a physically motivated framework for defining quantum conditional entropy, based on two simple postulates inspired by the second law of thermodynamics (non-decrease of entropy) and extensivity of entropy, and we argue that all plausible definitions of quantum conditional entropy should respect these two postulates. We then prove that all plausible quantum conditional entropies take on negative values for certain entangled states, so that it is inevitable that one can know less than nothing in the quantum world. All of our arguments are based on constructions of physical processes that respect the first postulate, the one inspired by the second law of thermodynamics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".