There could be a problem of the form you describe that has a formal specification, is well-defined, and has a clear optimal solution. Such problems are not wick

There could be a problem of the form you describe that has a formal specification, is well-defined, and has a clear optimal solution. Such problems are not wicked problem. Wicked problems are a lot messier. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem#Characteristics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem#Characteristics I reckon the "problem" of climate change is a good example of a wicked problem: > 1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem. "Solving" the "problem" of climate change is tangled up with population, global inequality of wealth between different countries, pollution, natural climate & ecological systems, the physical economy, the interests of different groups, the interest of groups who do not even exist yet, managing non-renewable resources, international trade negotiations, the accuracy with which we can approximately measure and simulate the trajectory of the global environment & physical economy, etc. There is not one clear objective function or agreement on constraints. > 2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule. People compare different policies, projecting ahead to the year 2100, etc. But imposing a finite time horizon is an approximation, reality will likely persist after 2100... > 3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse. > 4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem. > 5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly. Yes: the problem is global, there is a sample size of one planet to experiment upon with no control group to compare against, there is no opportunity for subsequent trials. The opportunity costs of inaction or making a sub-optimal decision are very high (not everyone pays the same cost. some benefit!) . > 6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan. > 7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique. > 8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem. Arguably climate change is a symptom of fossil-fuel dependence, or overpopulation, or failures in fundamental human ability for long-term planning & ethics, or failures in the organisations and systems used to govern our societies (optimising for short-term stability and unable to react to long-term problems, capture by powerful minority interest groups, etc), or failures to produce fundamental breakthroughs in physics over the last few decades to enable cheap new energy sources or some other tech-fix ... > 9. The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution. > 10. The social planner has no right to be wrong (i.e., planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate).