<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Explicit tough Ramsey graphs · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0807.2692/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0807.2692/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Explicit tough Ramsey graphs — mentioned by eesmith</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34308813</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:0807.2692:34308813</guid><pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2023 10:28:22 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;You&amp;#x27;ll need to ask an actual mathematician. Cook recently wrote that blog post, so it&amp;#x27;s much better to ask him in the comment section of that post. Just because I can do a Google Scholar query using &amp;quot;rational trigonometry&amp;quot; and find papers saying things like: &amp;quot;Explicit tough Ramsey graphs&amp;quot; at https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.2692.pdf . &amp;quot;We present here two new explicit constructions ... The first construction is based on a remarkable new approach of Wildberger to trigonometry and Euclidean geometry.&amp;quot; does not mean I am qualified to judge what is &amp;quot;interesting&amp;quot;, or figure out which use non-real fields.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0807.2692/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.CO</category></item></channel></rss>
