<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A Perspective on Constructive Quantum Field Theory · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1203.3991/</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/1203.3991/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A Perspective on Constructive Quantum Field Theory — mentioned by mjreacher</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31756797</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1203.3991:31756797</guid><pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2022 18:02:31 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;So maybe what we need is the right breakthrough in math? Funny you mention that, only recently I was reading a review paper on the state of constructive quantum field theory [0]. In the outlook section the author writes &amp;gt;Why haven’t these models of greatest physical interest been constructed yet (in any mathematically rigorous sense which preserves the basic principles constantly evoked in heuristic QFT and does not satisfy itself with an uncontrolled approximation)? Certainly, one can point to the practical fact that only a few dozen people have worked in CQFT. This should be compared with…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1203.3991/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
