<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Understanding Machine-learned Density Functionals · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1404.1333/</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/1404.1333/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Understanding Machine-learned Density Functionals — mentioned by Strilanc</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12069259</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1404.1333:12069259</guid><pubDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2016 06:38:13 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I wasn&amp;#x27;t expecting this article to be about Sleeping Beauty problems and Solomonoff induction. There are people trying to apply real machine learning algorithms to real physics problems (e.g. [1][2]). This article is not about that. It should go without saying that Solomonoff induction is totally useless for practical applications, if interesting theoretically. Brute forcing the space of all programs is ridiculously mindbogglingly universe-crushingly expensive. (Actually, even if the process was magically tractable, there would still be limitations and dangers [3].) 1…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1404.1333/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>physics.chem-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
