<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Constructor Theory of Probability · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1507.03287/</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/1507.03287/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Constructor Theory of Probability — mentioned by foxes</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30955005</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1507.03287:30955005</guid><pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2022 09:29:37 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I still have absolutely zero idea on what is supposed to be new about this. Last time I read any of it, it seemed like they needed to go read some modern maths books because their ideas didn&amp;#x27;t really seem new. The papers just read like a poor approximation of something. I want some precise statements. Yeah re framing existing problems in a new language can be useful, but it doesn&amp;#x27;t even feel like it can do that yet. The next question is why does it need a fancy website? If its that groundbreaking why has no one else said anything else about it since ~2016, which is when some of the papers on…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1507.03287/"&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>
