<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A robust generalization of the Legendre transform for QFT · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1612.00462/</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/1612.00462/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A robust generalization of the Legendre transform for QFT — mentioned by jessriedel</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19833794</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1612.00462:19833794</guid><pubDate>Sun, 05 May 2019 17:17:47 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I&amp;#x27;m a professor in condensed matter physics, doing research actively, quite well aware of Lagrangian mechanics and relativistic QFT, path integrals, and I also taught QFT. That&amp;#x27;s my background. Sorry, that was my mistake. I didn&amp;#x27;t expect that someone knowledgeable would say the Legendre transform &amp;quot;doesn&amp;#x27;t really show up in quantum mechanics&amp;quot;. Even if you want to dispute whether the switch between Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations of quantum mechanics is truly a Legendre transform, rather than a generalization that doesn&amp;#x27;t deserve that name, it seems incumbent on you to state clearly…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1612.00462/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>hep-th</category></item></channel></rss>
