Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #64364 > unrolled thread

[meta] how to attack a problem

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:15 -0700
    Re: [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:26 -0700
    Re: [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:34 -0700
      Re: [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:35 -0700
        Re: [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:51 -0700
    Re: [meta] how to attack a problem Aleksandar Kuktin <akuktin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 14:31 +0000
      Re: [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 07:38 -0700
        Re: [meta] how to attack a problem Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 14:50 -0700
          Re: [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 15:16 -0700
            Re: [meta] how to attack a problem Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 14:25 -0700
              Re: [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 16:00 -0700
                Re: [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 16:06 -0700
                  Re: [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-30 12:21 -0700
                    Re: [meta] how to attack a problem maddoxr@acm.org - 2015-07-01 07:09 -0700
                      Re: [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-07-01 11:01 -0700
                        Re: [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-07-01 11:20 -0700
                          Re: [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-07-01 11:33 -0700
                        Re: [meta] how to attack a problem Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-02 08:35 +0200
                      Re: [meta] how to attack a problem August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 07:18 +0200
                        Re: [meta] how to attack a problem "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-01 23:48 -0700
                          Re: [meta] how to attack a problem Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-02 07:33 -0500
                            Re: [meta] how to attack a problem "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 09:44 -0700
                            Re: [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 09:47 -0700
                              Re: [meta] how to attack a problem "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 09:58 -0700
                              Re: [meta] how to attack a problem Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-02 12:33 -0500
                                Re: [meta] how to attack a problem "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 10:37 -0700
                        Re: [meta] how to attack a problem maddoxr@acm.org - 2015-07-03 06:01 -0700
                          Re: [meta] how to attack a problem Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-03 10:58 -0500
                            Re: [meta] how to attack a problem David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 09:07 -0700
                            Re: [meta] how to attack a problem gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-06 05:20 -0700
                              Re: [meta] how to attack a problem "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-07-06 05:23 -0700
                              Re: [meta] how to attack a problem James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-06 08:37 -0400
                                Re: [meta] how to attack a problem maddoxr@acm.org - 2015-07-06 07:01 -0700
                                  Re: [meta] how to attack a problem James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-06 10:31 -0400
                                  Re: [meta] how to attack a problem Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-06 07:48 -0700
                                    Re: [meta] how to attack a problem raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-06 19:07 +0000
                                      Re: [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-07-06 12:32 -0700
                                  Re: [meta] how to attack a problem Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-06 10:06 -0500
                                Re: [meta] how to attack a problem gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-06 08:49 -0700
                      Re: [meta] how to attack a problem luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-07-06 14:03 -0700
                        Re: [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-07-06 14:52 -0700
                          Re: [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-07-08 14:05 -0700
                            Re: [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-07-09 01:27 -0700
                        Re: [meta] how to attack a problem Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-06 16:19 -0700
                          Re: [meta] how to attack a problem luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-07-06 18:17 -0700
                            Re: [meta] how to attack a problem luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-07-06 18:58 -0700
                        Re: [meta] how to attack a problem Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-07-06 21:09 -0600
                          Re: [meta] how to attack a problem "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-07-07 15:14 -0500
                            Re: [meta] how to attack a problem Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-07 14:50 -0700
                            Re: [meta] how to attack a problem Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-07-07 21:20 -0600
                            Re: [meta] how to attack a problem gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-08 04:01 -0700
        Re: [meta] how to attack a problem Aleksandar Kuktin <akuktin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 00:58 +0000
          Re: [meta] how to attack a problem fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 10:31 -0700
      Re: [meta] how to attack a problem Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 14:41 -0700
        Re: [meta] how to attack a problem Aleksandar Kuktin <akuktin@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 00:57 +0000
    Re: [meta] how to attack a problem luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-07-06 19:32 -0700

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#64618

On 7/2/2015 1:48 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> August Karlstrom wrote:
>   > No hurry. When you understand the problem, the solution will be
>> obvious. If the solution is not obvious, you do not yet understand
>> the problem.
>
> P v. NP.
>
>      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem

Be careful, your attributions made it look like August Karlstrom wrote 
the above instead of fir. Anyway, my contribution will be

Is every even number greater than 2 is the sum of two primes?

Martin Shobe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64621

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 8:34:06 AM UTC-4, Martin Shobe wrote:
> On 7/2/2015 1:48 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > August Karlstrom wrote:
> >   > No hurry. When you understand the problem, the solution will be
> >> obvious. If the solution is not obvious, you do not yet understand
> >> the problem.
> >
> > P v. NP.
> >
> >      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem
> 
> Be careful, your attributions made it look like August Karlstrom wrote 
> the above instead of fir. Anyway, my contribution will be
> 
> Is every even number greater than 2 is the sum of two primes?
> 
> Martin Shobe

Oooh!  My mistake.  I typed that in on my phone and I grabbed the wrong
name for the quote.

Sorry, Martin.  And Sorry, August.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64622

W dniu czwartek, 2 lipca 2015 14:34:06 UTC+2 użytkownik Martin Shobe napisał:
> On 7/2/2015 1:48 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > August Karlstrom wrote:
> >   > No hurry. When you understand the problem, the solution will be
> >> obvious. If the solution is not obvious, you do not yet understand
> >> the problem.
> >
> > P v. NP.
> >
> >      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem
> 
> Be careful, your attributions made it look like August Karlstrom wrote 
> the above instead of fir. Anyway, my contribution will be
> 
> Is every even number greater than 2 is the sum of two primes?
> 
> Martin Shobe

i didnt wrote that
(overall my topic is on something different,\
sadly its very psychological)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64624

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 12:47:50 PM UTC-4, fir wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 2 lipca 2015 14:34:06 UTC+2 użytkownik Martin Shobe napisał:
> > On 7/2/2015 1:48 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > > August Karlstrom wrote:
> > >   > No hurry. When you understand the problem, the solution will be
> > >> obvious. If the solution is not obvious, you do not yet understand
> > >> the problem.
> > >
> > > P v. NP.
> > >
> > >      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem
> > 
> > Be careful, your attributions made it look like August Karlstrom wrote 
> > the above instead of fir. Anyway, my contribution will be
> > 
> > Is every even number greater than 2 is the sum of two primes?
> > 
> > Martin Shobe
> 
> i didnt wrote that
> (overall my topic is on something different,\
> sadly its very psychological)

Okay... in looking again, I see that it was Randy.  Sorry, fir! :-)

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64626

On 7/2/2015 11:47 AM, fir wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 2 lipca 2015 14:34:06 UTC+2 użytkownik Martin Shobe napisał:
>> On 7/2/2015 1:48 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> August Karlstrom wrote:
>>>    > No hurry. When you understand the problem, the solution will be
>>>> obvious. If the solution is not obvious, you do not yet understand
>>>> the problem.
>>>
>>> P v. NP.
>>>
>>>       https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem
>>
>> Be careful, your attributions made it look like August Karlstrom wrote
>> the above instead of fir. Anyway, my contribution will be
>>
>> Is every even number greater than 2 is the sum of two primes?
>>
>> Martin Shobe
>
> i didnt wrote that
> (overall my topic is on something different,\
> sadly its very psychological)

Sorry. My mistake, it was Randy.

Martin Shobe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64627

Martin Shobe wrote:
> Sorry. My mistake, it was Randy. 

We sure are a sorry lot!  Especially me! :-)

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64631

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 1:19:03 AM UTC-4, August Karlstrom wrote:
> On 2015-07-01 16:09, maddoxr@acm.org wrote:
> > No hurry.  When you understand the problem, the solution will be
> > obvious.  If the solution is not obvious, you do not yet understand
> > the problem.
> 
> I understand Fermat's last theorem but I can't solve it.
> 
> 
> -- August

Trite, and not relevant.

First, Fermat's last theorem was proved by Andrew Wiles in 1995, so someone understood it better than you or I.

Second, this is a discussion group on the C programming language, where we mostly deal with a very different set of problems.

Third, there are many questions for which no answer exists.  Such cannot, by definition, be understood well enough to be solved.

Thus, in practical application to real work, I stand by my statement.

Randy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64634

On 7/3/2015 8:01 AM, maddoxr@acm.org wrote:
> On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 1:19:03 AM UTC-4, August Karlstrom wrote:
>> On 2015-07-01 16:09, maddoxr@acm.org wrote:
>>> No hurry.  When you understand the problem, the solution will be
>>> obvious.  If the solution is not obvious, you do not yet understand
>>> the problem.
>>
>> I understand Fermat's last theorem but I can't solve it.
>>
>>
>> -- August
>
> Trite, and not relevant.
>
> First, Fermat's last theorem was proved by Andrew Wiles in 1995, so someone understood it better than you or I.

He understood how to prove a particular result better than you or I, but 
I don't see the connection between that and understanding the problem, 
"Is there three positive integers, a, b, and c, such that a^n+b^n = c^n 
for any integer value of n greater than two. The problem itself is 
simple, it's the solution that hard.

> Third, there are many questions for which no answer exists.  Such cannot, by definition, be understood well enough to be solved.

That is a rather odd definition of understood. Sure, if understood, 
means solved, then any unsolvable problem is not understandable, but I 
certainly don't use understood that way.

Martin Shobe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64635

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 8:58:18 AM UTC-7, Martin Shobe wrote:
> On 7/3/2015 8:01 AM, maddoxr@acm.org wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 1:19:03 AM UTC-4, August Karlstrom wrote:
> >> On 2015-07-01 16:09, maddoxr@acm.org wrote:
> >>> No hurry.  When you understand the problem, the solution will be
> >>> obvious.  If the solution is not obvious, you do not yet understand
> >>> the problem.
> >>
> >> I understand Fermat's last theorem but I can't solve it.
> >>
> >>
> >> -- August
> >
> > Trite, and not relevant.
> >
> > First, Fermat's last theorem was proved by Andrew Wiles in 1995, so someone understood it better than you or I.
> 
> He understood how to prove a particular result better than you or I, but 
> I don't see the connection between that and understanding the problem, 
> "Is there three positive integers, a, b, and c, such that a^n+b^n = c^n 
> for any integer value of n greater than two. The problem itself is 
> simple, it's the solution that hard.
> 
> > Third, there are many questions for which no answer exists.  Such cannot, by definition, be understood well enough to be solved.
> 
> That is a rather odd definition of understood. Sure, if understood, 
> means solved, then any unsolvable problem is not understandable, but I 
> certainly don't use understood that way.
 
There are problems and there are problems.

The human population of the world is growing exponentially. That
cannot endure forever. Problem: what, if anything, should we do
about it?

That's a real world problem of the kind RM surely intended rather
than the problem of proving a mathematical hypothesis.

RM's rule is a good rule of thumb - but just like every similar
rule - it leaks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64740

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 4:58:18 PM UTC+1, Martin Shobe wrote:
> > Third, there are many questions for which no answer exists.  Such cannot, by definition, be understood well enough to be solved.
> 
> That is a rather odd definition of understood. Sure, if understood, 
> means solved, then any unsolvable problem is not understandable, but I 
> certainly don't use understood that way.

What he meant was "once you understand a problem you know how to solve it, where by 'understand' I mean 'understand sufficiently well to have solved'".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64741

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 8:20:16 AM UTC-4, gwowen wrote:
> [snip]

With my dyslexia, when I read "gwowen," my mind always reads it as
Gowron. :-)  It takes me a couple glances to get it right.

    http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Gowron

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64742

On 07/06/2015 08:20 AM, gwowen wrote:
> On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 4:58:18 PM UTC+1, Martin Shobe wrote:
>>> Third, there are many questions for which no answer exists.  Such cannot, by definition, be understood well enough to be solved.
>>
>> That is a rather odd definition of understood. Sure, if understood, 
>> means solved, then any unsolvable problem is not understandable, but I 
>> certainly don't use understood that way.
> 
> What he meant was "once you understand a problem you know how to solve it, where by 'understand' I mean 'understand sufficiently well to have solved'".

It's just nonsense - it's perfectly feasible to understand a problem
perfectly, without having any idea how to solve it. What he really means
is "When you understand how to solve the problem, the solution will be
obvious. If the solution is not obvious, the you do not yet understand
how to solve the problem." But wording it that way would make the
tautologous nature of his assertion too obvious. So he replaces "how to
solve the problem" with simply "the problem", it ceases to be a
tautology, and simultaneously becomes nonsense.
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64749

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 8:37:40 AM UTC-4, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 07/06/2015 08:20 AM, gwowen wrote:
> > On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 4:58:18 PM UTC+1, Martin Shobe wrote:
> >>> Third, there are many questions for which no answer exists.  Such cannot, by definition, be understood well enough to be solved.
> >>
> >> That is a rather odd definition of understood. Sure, if understood, 
> >> means solved, then any unsolvable problem is not understandable, but I 
> >> certainly don't use understood that way.
> > 
> > What he meant was "once you understand a problem you know how to solve it, where by 'understand' I mean 'understand sufficiently well to have solved'".
> 
> It's just nonsense - it's perfectly feasible to understand a problem
> perfectly, without having any idea how to solve it. What he really means
> is "When you understand how to solve the problem, the solution will be
> obvious. If the solution is not obvious, the you do not yet understand
> how to solve the problem." But wording it that way would make the
> tautologous nature of his assertion too obvious. So he replaces "how to
> solve the problem" with simply "the problem", it ceases to be a
> tautology, and simultaneously becomes nonsense.
> -- 
> James Kuyper

Actually, no.  What I meant was that the problem and the solution are opposite sides of the same coin, the white and black of the yin and yang symbol, a single whole that we only perceive as separate parts until we see the unity.  Then we understand, and both the solution and the problem are obvious.

Randy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64754

On 07/06/2015 10:01 AM, maddoxr@acm.org wrote:
> On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 8:37:40 AM UTC-4, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 07/06/2015 08:20 AM, gwowen wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 4:58:18 PM UTC+1, Martin Shobe wrote:
>>>>> Third, there are many questions for which no answer exists.  Such cannot, by definition, be understood well enough to be solved.
>>>>
>>>> That is a rather odd definition of understood. Sure, if understood, 
>>>> means solved, then any unsolvable problem is not understandable, but I 
>>>> certainly don't use understood that way.
>>>
>>> What he meant was "once you understand a problem you know how to solve it, where by 'understand' I mean 'understand sufficiently well to have solved'".
>>
>> It's just nonsense - it's perfectly feasible to understand a problem
>> perfectly, without having any idea how to solve it. What he really means
>> is "When you understand how to solve the problem, the solution will be
>> obvious. If the solution is not obvious, the you do not yet understand
>> how to solve the problem." But wording it that way would make the
>> tautologous nature of his assertion too obvious. So he replaces "how to
>> solve the problem" with simply "the problem", it ceases to be a
>> tautology, and simultaneously becomes nonsense.
...
> Actually, no.  What I meant was that the problem and the solution are opposite sides of the same coin, the white and black of the yin and yang symbol, a single whole that we only perceive as separate parts until we see the unity.  Then we understand, and both the solution and the problem are obvious.

You may believe that mystical nonsense - it's still nonsense. That's
because, unlike the case with the yin/yang symbol, the supposed
complementarity isn't constructive. A perfect understanding of the
problem is often insufficient to construct the supposedly complementary
solution to it - which means I would not call it complementary.
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64757

maddoxr@acm.org writes:
[...]
> Actually, no.  What I meant was that the problem and the solution are
> opposite sides of the same coin, the white and black of the yin and
> yang symbol, a single whole that we only perceive as separate parts
> until we see the unity.  Then we understand, and both the solution and
> the problem are obvious.

There are problems for which that's true, where once you understand the
problem clearly enough, the solution is reasonably obvious.

There are also problems for which that is definitely *not* true, where
the problem can be understood from a simple and straightforward
description, but the solution is *extremely* complex.

Examples are Fermat's Last Theorem and the Four Color Map Theorem, both
of which have simple statements but took literally centuries of effort
to solve.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64790

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:

> maddoxr@acm.org writes:
> [...]
> > Actually, no.  What I meant was that the problem and the solution are
> > opposite sides of the same coin, the white and black of the yin and
> > yang symbol, a single whole that we only perceive as separate parts
> > until we see the unity.  Then we understand, and both the solution and
> > the problem are obvious.
> 
> There are problems for which that's true, where once you understand the
> problem clearly enough, the solution is reasonably obvious.
> 
> There are also problems for which that is definitely *not* true, where
> the problem can be understood from a simple and straightforward
> description, but the solution is *extremely* complex.

There are even problems for which it's true that if you understand it
well enough, it becomes clear that there _isn't_ a solution. The most
famous of these in computing is the Halting Problem.

Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64791

W dniu poniedziałek, 6 lipca 2015 21:07:23 UTC+2 użytkownik Richard Bos napisał:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> 
> > maddoxr@acm.org writes:
> > [...]
> > > Actually, no.  What I meant was that the problem and the solution are
> > > opposite sides of the same coin, the white and black of the yin and
> > > yang symbol, a single whole that we only perceive as separate parts
> > > until we see the unity.  Then we understand, and both the solution and
> > > the problem are obvious.
> > 
> > There are problems for which that's true, where once you understand the
> > problem clearly enough, the solution is reasonably obvious.
> > 
> > There are also problems for which that is definitely *not* true, where
> > the problem can be understood from a simple and straightforward
> > description, but the solution is *extremely* complex.
> 
> There are even problems for which it's true that if you understand it
> well enough, it becomes clear that there _isn't_ a solution. The most
> famous of these in computing is the Halting Problem.
> 
anyway well understending of the problem leads closer to solution - and i was asking indeed how to attack understanding (as there are many ways to it).. afterall maybe i was to pesymistyc/hysteric maybe just patience is a sufficient way to go (m not sure - this is one of the main virtual thesis that could be applied here in this topic: do patience (+slight determinantion but you could optymisticaly call it derivative of patience)) suffice or no... m not sure as to answer to this

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64759

On 7/6/2015 9:01 AM, maddoxr@acm.org wrote:
> On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 8:37:40 AM UTC-4, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 07/06/2015 08:20 AM, gwowen wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 4:58:18 PM UTC+1, Martin Shobe wrote:
>>>>> Third, there are many questions for which no answer exists.  Such cannot, by definition, be understood well enough to be solved.
>>>>
>>>> That is a rather odd definition of understood. Sure, if understood,
>>>> means solved, then any unsolvable problem is not understandable, but I
>>>> certainly don't use understood that way.
>>>
>>> What he meant was "once you understand a problem you know how to solve it, where by 'understand' I mean 'understand sufficiently well to have solved'".
>>
>> It's just nonsense - it's perfectly feasible to understand a problem
>> perfectly, without having any idea how to solve it. What he really means
>> is "When you understand how to solve the problem, the solution will be
>> obvious. If the solution is not obvious, the you do not yet understand
>> how to solve the problem." But wording it that way would make the
>> tautologous nature of his assertion too obvious. So he replaces "how to
>> solve the problem" with simply "the problem", it ceases to be a
>> tautology, and simultaneously becomes nonsense.

> Actually, no.  What I meant was that the problem and the solution are opposite sides of the same coin, the white and black of the yin and yang symbol, a single whole that we only perceive as separate parts until we see the unity.  Then we understand, and both the solution and the problem are obvious.

And how do problems that provably have no solution fit into this? Does 
this mean that they can't be understood? If so, how did we prove that it 
doesn't have a solution if we didn't understand the problem?

Martin Shobe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64767

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 1:37:40 PM UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 07/06/2015 08:20 AM, gwowen wrote:
> > On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 4:58:18 PM UTC+1, Martin Shobe wrote:
> >>> Third, there are many questions for which no answer exists.  Such cannot, by definition, be understood well enough to be solved.
> >>
> >> That is a rather odd definition of understood. Sure, if understood, 
> >> means solved, then any unsolvable problem is not understandable, but I 
> >> certainly don't use understood that way.
> > 
> > What he meant was "once you understand a problem you know how to solve it, where by 'understand' I mean 'understand sufficiently well to have solved'".
> 
> It's just nonsense - 

Yes.  

> it's perfectly feasible to understand a problem
> perfectly, without having any idea how to solve it. .... 

Yes

> So he replaces "how to solve the problem" with simply "the problem",
> it ceases to be a tautology, and simultaneously becomes nonsense.

Yes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64801

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 9:09:38 AM UTC-5, mad...@acm.org wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 3:21:45 PM UTC-4, fir wrote:
> > PS I may add much weaker question but boarding slightly on this perfect methodology topic"
> > 
> > is it better to attack a problems 
> > - in a bit hurry 
> > - in a bit lazy mode
> > - in high hurry and tense
> > - in big lazy mode
> > 
> > ?
> > 
> > imo when you work in hurry you get tired,
> > so being a little slow may help you conservate (preserve) the energy - so this could be better
> > - otherwise it may seem thoygh thet being a little hury could rise your level of focus and
> > tempo (though i personally do not quite belive in this, but maybe, im not sure)
> 
> "Measure twice, cut once."
> 
> No hurry.  When you understand the problem, the solution will be obvious.  If the solution is not obvious, you do not yet understand the problem.
> 
> Randy.

While the wording has attracted some disagreement, this is
IMO a very valuable notion. Perhaps if we replace 'problem'
with 'problem statement', that might lead us in a useful
direction.

The seeds of the answer are embedded in the question.

-- 
There are no answers -- only choices.
-Dr. Gibarian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web