<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Introducing categories to the practicing physicist · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0808.1032/</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/0808.1032/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Introducing categories to the practicing physicist — mentioned by useless</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9748253</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:0808.1032:9748253</guid><pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2015 23:20:59 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I think it is generally useful for people to have a picture in their head about whats going on as work quite frequently gets lead by instinct and educated guesswork which can be made rigorous once you&amp;#x27;ve decided its worth the time to do so. That said I really don&amp;#x27;t understand the appeal of Bohmian mechanics. The explicit non-locality puts me off it. On a more positive note the stuff about category theory is very interesting and I think has a lot to offer physics in general and quantum mechanics in particular. I found a couple of papers by Bob Coecke made a good introduction to the use of…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0808.1032/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>quant-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
