<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Conditions for compatibility of quantum state assignments · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/quant-ph_0206110/</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/quant-ph_0206110/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Conditions for compatibility of quantum state assignments — mentioned by n4r9</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14568479</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:quant-ph_0206110:14568479</guid><pubDate>Fri, 16 Jun 2017 13:04:33 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Perhaps it would help to note that in QBism, reality is not denied. Rather, the objective reality of the quantum state is denied. Not sure what you mean by incompatible results. Certainly QBism is incompatible with Many Worlds! The latter states that the quantum state is real and objective, the former states the opposite. The QBist horsemen have devoted some attention to the question of compatible quantum state assignments. See: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206110 However, Chris Fuchs does not see any problem in someone assigning a probability-1 belief to a measurement outcome and being…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/quant-ph_0206110/"&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>
