<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Deep Neural Network Approximation Theory · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1901.02220/</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/1901.02220/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Deep Neural Network Approximation Theory — mentioned by joe_the_user</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27488002</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1901.02220:27488002</guid><pubDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2021 22:41:08 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I got my master&amp;#x27;s years ago so now I&amp;#x27;m a strict amateur. That said, I don&amp;#x27;t think the &amp;quot;No free lunch theorem&amp;quot; is very &amp;quot;interesting&amp;quot;. It&amp;#x27;s nearly tautological that no approximation method works for &amp;quot;any&amp;quot; function. The set of predictable/interesting/useful/&amp;quot;real-world&amp;quot; functions is going to have measure 0 compared to white noise so &amp;quot;any function&amp;quot; will basically look like white noise and can&amp;#x27;t be predicted. Approximating functions/sequences with vanishingly low Kolmogorov complexity is more interesting, impossible in general by Godel&amp;#x27;s theorem but what&amp;#x27;s the case &amp;quot;on average&amp;quot;? (depends on the…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1901.02220/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.LG</category></item></channel></rss>
