<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A Generalised Exactness Structure for Sets · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1808.01350/</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/1808.01350/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A Generalised Exactness Structure for Sets — mentioned by mikorym</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21212755</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1808.01350:21212755</guid><pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:17:44 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;This is also true of QM (not just because of QM computational sciences). My MSc thesis has application to quantum mechanics. I wrote a short summary of the generalisation that I made here [1], which generalises what the Nijmegen group calls quotient comprehension chains to sets. The authors of the latter QC-chains did not seem much interested when I emailed them. In any case, ideally the framework should touch on geometry eventually as well, but I am not aware of concrete ways to do it. Toposes are considered geometric, but I don&amp;#x27;t know whether geometric in the sense of GR. The eventual or at…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1808.01350/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.CT</category></item></channel></rss>
