Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Horizons Protect Church-Turing

High Energy Physics - Theory · Submitted 3 Mar 2020

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim A viable reformulation requires that the thesis only applies to observers who have access to the holographic boundary of space.

how it is stated · hedged possibility 0.57 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID2003.01807 (version 1)
Pith IDUWWVQZWB, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationLeonard Susskind. "Horizons Protect Church-Turing." arXiv:2003.01807 (2020). https://pith.science/paper/UWWVQZWB
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,894 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.33 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.04 · compares with prior results 0.64 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

The quantum-Extended Church-Turing thesis is a principle of physics as well as computer science. It asserts that the laws of physics will prevent the construction of a machine that can efficiently determine the results of any calculation which cannot be done efficiently by a quantum Turing machine (or a universal quantum circuit). In this note I will argue that an observer falling into a black hole can learn the result of such a calculation in a very short time, thereby seemingly violating the thesis. A viable reformulation requires that the thesis only applies to observers who have access to the holographic boundary of space. The properties of the horizon play a crucial a role in protecting the thesis. The arguments are closely related to, and were partially motivated by a recent paper by Bouland, Fefferman, and Vazirani, and by a question raised by Aaronson.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 The quantum-Extended Church-Turing thesis is a principle of physics as well as computer science. background 1.00 0.04 0.03 asserted 1.00
s1 It asserts that the laws of physics will prevent the construction of a machine that can efficiently determine the results of any calculation which cannot be done efficiently by a quantum Turing machine (or a universal quantum circuit). background 1.00 0.04 0.05 asserted 0.99
s2 In this note I will argue that an observer falling into a black hole can learn the result of such a calculation in a very short time, thereby seemingly violating the thesis. contribution 0.47 0.32 0.19 hedged possibility 0.61
s3 A viable reformulation requires that the thesis only applies to observers who have access to the holographic boundary of space. contribution 0.46 0.54 0.67 hedged possibility 0.57
s4 The properties of the horizon play a crucial a role in protecting the thesis. interpretation 0.64 0.40 0.31 asserted 1.00
s5 The arguments are closely related to, and were partially motivated by a recent paper by Bouland, Fefferman, and Vazirani, and by a question raised by Aaronson. background 1.00 0.14 0.02 asserted 0.87

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: position or commentary 1.00 · evidence from argument 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

The quantum-Extended Church-Turing thesis is a principle of physics as well as computer science. It asserts that the laws of physics will prevent the construction of a machine that can efficiently determine the results of any calculation which cannot be done efficiently by a quantum Turing machine (or a universal quantum circuit). In this note I will argue that an observer falling into a black hole can learn the result of such a calculation in a very short time, thereby seemingly violating the thesis. A viable reformulation requires that the thesis only applies to observers who have access to the holographic boundary of space. The properties of the horizon play a crucial a role in protecting the thesis. The arguments are closely related to, and were partially motivated by a recent paper by Bouland, Fefferman, and Vazirani, and by a question raised by Aaronson.

Human review
References
How the literature uses it

16 arXiv papers cite this in 23 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 15 sentences without a confident label

Compares with it 1 paper
Cites it as support 2 papers
  • The complexity of doing this can be at least exponential in the complexity of the operator [ref] [ref] .

    Petz map and Python's lunch · Comparison with exterior operator reconstruction · 0.98

  • The first is that the dictionary is extremely complex [ref] [ref] ; in fact it is exponentially complex, even for states of modest polynomial complexity[If that sounds contradictory it's not.

    Black Holes at Exp-time · Three Descriptions: Which is Right? · 0.96

Cites it as background 5 papers

What it cites · 8 sentences without a confident label

Cites as support 4 papers
Cites as background 1 paper

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.