3 ms·

I agree, solving for the optimal solution is generally an NP hard problem when dealing with real world constraints. The real world is not a word problem in a ma

by pg_bot 8y ago

I agree, solving for the optimal solution is generally an NP hard problem when dealing with real world constraints. The real world is not a word problem in a math textbook. In practice you can often get away with improving an existing system instead of finding the "best" solution to the problem. This is what pragmatic people do, and it is often a lot easier than we think it is. If you frame the problem as "finding the best possible solution to the bus routing problem factoring in all the needs of the populace", I would agree that's a very hard problem. If you frame the problem as "can we improve the existing Boston bus routing system", it will likely be a lot easier. Always remember that perfect is the enemy of done.

ska 8y ago
You, like the other poster, seem to be assuming that nobody has tried "can we improve the existing ..." using the obvious tools. I find this attitude both puzzling and patronizing of the people involved. Without specific knowledge, is seems far more likely the obvious things have been tried by reasonably intelligent people. As you say, it's what pragmatic people do (and it's usually still more complicated than the intro textbook versions) Now I have no specific knowledge of this particular problem, but the article does suggest it is something that has been tried before (rescheduling) and failed for various reasons. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, why won't you? Really I'm objecting to the idea that "if only we could have found a math undergrad, this would have been improved years ago". That's a particularly naive view.
- pg_bot 8y ago
  It is my opinion that these initiatives fail for political reasons rather than on their merit. There are perverse incentives for all interested parties to avoid changing the status quo. Anytime you find a cause with diffuse costs and concentrated benefits it's going to be an uphill battle to get things implemented. As indicated by the article, math was not the barrier to implementing better scheduling. We are able to do the math.
  - ska 8y ago
    That's quite a different issue, but I agree that this is a common failure mode.

by pg_bot 8y ago

ska 8y ago

You, like the other poster, seem to be assuming that nobody has tried "can we improve the existing ..." using the obvious tools. I find this attitude both puzzling and patronizing of the people involved. Without specific knowledge, is seems far more likely the obvious things have been tried by reasonably intelligent people. As you say, it's what pragmatic people do (and it's usually still more complicated than the intro textbook versions) Now I have no specific knowledge of this particular problem, but the article does suggest it is something that has been tried before (rescheduling) and failed for various reasons. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, why won't you? Really I'm objecting to the idea that "if only we could have found a math undergrad, this would have been improved years ago". That's a particularly naive view.

pg_bot 8y ago
It is my opinion that these initiatives fail for political reasons rather than on their merit. There are perverse incentives for all interested parties to avoid changing the status quo. Anytime you find a cause with diffuse costs and concentrated benefits it's going to be an uphill battle to get things implemented. As indicated by the article, math was not the barrier to implementing better scheduling. We are able to do the math.
- ska 8y ago
  That's quite a different issue, but I agree that this is a common failure mode.