<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Information processing in generalized probabilistic theories · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/quant-ph_0508211/</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_0508211/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Information processing in generalized probabilistic theories — mentioned by n4r9</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14558676</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:quant-ph_0508211:14558676</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:10:20 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Complex numbers aren&amp;#x27;t strictly necessary. You could even expand every complex dimension to a pair or real dimensions and get the same results (roughly speaking). However this is a bit unwieldy, so the question becomes &amp;quot;why do complex numbers provide such a convenient representation of quantum theory&amp;quot;? There is work being done on this sort of thing. If essentially all you care about are the probabilities of certain observations occurring, then you surely can represent any theory with real numbers. The field of &amp;quot;generalised probabilistic/physical theories&amp;quot; attempts to analyse quantum theory…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/quant-ph_0508211/"&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>
