<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Arithmetical meadows · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0909.2088/</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/0909.2088/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Arithmetical meadows — mentioned by syzarian</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35528963</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:0909.2088:35528963</guid><pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2023 18:15:00 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Mathematics is a vast subject and I can’t keep track of all developments. In 2010 there was a paper on meadows. I’ve never heard the term before. In that paper it is written: As usual in field theory, the convention to consider p / q as an abbreviation for p · q−1 was used in subsequent work on meadows (see e.g. [2,5]). This convention is no longer satisfactory if partial variants of meadows are con- sidered too, as is demonstrated in [3]. So, as I’ve stated many times, I talked about convention and indicated you can use whatever terms you want. In the paper quoted above they acknowledge what…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0909.2088/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.RA</category></item></channel></rss>
