<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Classical and intuitionistic mathematical languages shape our understanding of time in physics · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2002.01653/</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/2002.01653/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Classical and intuitionistic mathematical languages shape our understanding of time in physics — mentioned by xelxebar</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22852829</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2002.01653:22852829</guid><pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2020 03:08:11 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Here&amp;#x27;s what looks like the original paper; it&amp;#x27;s a mere 3 pages long: https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.01653 It&amp;#x27;s a lot of prose with hand-wavy analogies. My takeaway is that the author seems to have become enamored with intuitionistic logic but seems to lack much concrete experience working with it. For anyone intrigued by constructive mathematics, there&amp;#x27;s a nice talk and paper by Andrej Bauer (nice coincidence) called &amp;quot;Five Stages of Accepting Constructive Mathematics.&amp;quot; It&amp;#x27;s a nice mix of prose and rigor of varying levels: http://math.andrej.com/2016/10/10/five-stages-of-accepting-c... The…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2002.01653/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>physics.hist-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
