<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A Hilbert Scheme in Computer Vision · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1107.2875/</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/1107.2875/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A Hilbert Scheme in Computer Vision — mentioned by hyperbovine</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3211683</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1107.2875:3211683</guid><pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:26:15 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Here&amp;#x27;s a paper I read yesterday. Kindly review it for me: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.2875.pdf The scheme you are advocating might have succeeded 200 years ago, when science was happening at a much for fundamental level than it is now. These days, things are so specialized that what the OP says is spot-on: only a handful of people are qualified to knowledgeably comment on your work. What&amp;#x27;s more, these people are all /incredibly/ busy; I would know since I spend my time trying to get their attention (grad student) :-) In short, the way we conduct research is kind of like what Churchill said…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1107.2875/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.AG</category></item></channel></rss>
