<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>A singular integration by parts formula for the exponential Euclidean QFT on the plane · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2212.05584/</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/2212.05584/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>A singular integration by parts formula for the exponential Euclidean QFT on the plane — mentioned by mgubi</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34183541</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2212.05584:34183541</guid><pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2022 09:47:18 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;It is not clear what this comment would like to add. The presupposition that no other software can equal or surpass some magic powers of TeX/LaTeX has nothing to do with technical merit. Indeed I guess most users cannot distinguish a document produced with TeXmacs or with LaTeX. For example all these papers: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.05584.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.05562.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.15047.pdf have been typesetted directly with TeXmacs with no intervention of LaTeX whatsoever. What use cases do you have in mind to support your claim? ps: it is clear that TeX is a…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2212.05584/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>math.PR</category></item></channel></rss>
