<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Tests of constructor theory · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2606.07352/</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/2606.07352/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Tests of constructor theory — mentioned by ljosifov</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48445228</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2606.07352:48445228</guid><pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2026 13:40:39 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks for the tear down. IDK anything about quantum (my knowledge there starts and ends with https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html), but amused enough to follow in the background. See whether it ends crazy-bad or crazy-good. :-) And just today now I saw this https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.07352. What&amp;#x27;s your take on it? Am old enough to have witnessed more than one wave of &amp;quot;impossible things&amp;quot; happen for real in my lifetime, so lets see. As long as the scientific method (evidence, publication, replication, testing, etc) is mostly followed am curious enough to check blog posts or…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2606.07352/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>quant-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
