9 ms·

>The important question is what is the computational complexity of the transformation? In my view it makes no sense to use metrics from one model on the other.

• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• pron 10y ago
  > This is like measuring the computational complexity of a mathematical proof - it has no complexity, it's delcarative. There are few things that are absolute in this universe, but computational complexity is one of them. There is plenty of complexity involved. Have your heard of proof complexity? How do you know that a proof is a proof and how is a proof created? It's pretty much the core of P vs. NP question (and first discussed by Stephen Cook, the same guy who formally framed P vs. NP): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_complexity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_complexity Actually, the first one who asked the question of P vs. NP was Kurt Gödel (https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/the-gdel-letter/ https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/the-gdel-letter/), and as a mathematician, he was very much interested in the complexity (although he didn't use that word) of proofs. He said that if P = NP (not in those words): > If there really were a machine with φ(n) ∼ k ⋅ n (or even ∼ k ⋅ n2), this would have consequences of the greatest importance. Namely, it would obviously mean that in spite of the undecidability of the Entscheidungsproblem, the mental work of a mathematician concerning Yes-or-No questions could be completely replaced by a machine.