https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0805.2859/Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.enMon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMThttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18412372urn:hackerpapers:mention:0805.2859:18412372Fri, 09 Nov 2018 04:40:44 GMT<p>Ask specific questions. Like I have a papers backing up most of my claims. Sometimes you need to take a leap of faith but you don’t need to draw every line in the connect the dot puzzle to see that it’s a fucking elephant. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.2859.pdf Page 14. But do a google search “constructive mathematics” “quantum” or “linear logic” “quantum”, a lot has been written.</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0805.2859/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>quant-phhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13579310urn:hackerpapers:mention:0805.2859:13579310Mon, 06 Feb 2017 13:45:04 GMT<p>Which is a property of our formalism, not reality. Any state we&#x27;d care to actually observe necessarily has finite precision, so the internal mechanics of our formalism to model this process utilizing infinities is an artifact only of our formalism, not of reality. Furthermore, quantum computing and classical computing are known to have the same computational power, just different computational complexity, ie. any quantum system can be simulated by a classical system with exponential slowdown, at worst. There are plenty of papers exploring this territory [1,2,3] if you want further details.…</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0805.2859/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>quant-ph