5 ms·

> If X is an easy problem, solving it "as quickly as possible" would be easy too. Hard disagree with this one. Summing all numbers from 1 to 100 is easy, summ

by dacryn 3y ago

> If X is an easy problem, solving it "as quickly as possible" would be easy too. Hard disagree with this one. Summing all numbers from 1 to 100 is easy, summing 1 to a million is also easy, just time consuming. 1+2+3+4.... Coming up with (n*(1+n))/2 is not.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
acer4666 3y ago
"easy, just time consuming" ... Also known as hard
- throwaway14356 3y ago
  If the easy task involves 7 things all straight forwards. You get 6 opportunities to waste time in between. Each sub task completed (to me at least) seems like the perfect time to look out the window, check email, have a snack etc but you wouldn't [say] half way typing a sentence. You could but won't.
coldtea 3y ago
Then you didn't have an easy problem to begin with, you had a hard one ("summing too many numbers fast enough") [1]. Also I think that the parent didn't mean "as quickly as possible" in the execution speed or algorithm sense, he meant in the clock time sense: getting it solved quickly and moving on. So in their (and mine) formulation, the problem is easy by definition. It's not an "easy problem turned had because it has to be optimized for speed". I thought that your objection was that finding a simple solution would be hard itself (which wouldn't be the case if the problem is easy as in "easy to solve"). [1] not that coming with a basic series summation formula is "hard" (except you're Gauss, and you're the first mathematician doing it, the rest just need to know how to search for it), but I'll accept it as hard for the sake of argument.
- lowkey_ 3y ago
  > Then you didn't have an easy problem to begin with, you had a hard one ("summing too many numbers fast enough") [1]. That’s exactly what the initial comment said: > The "solve X as quickly as possible" is now the problem. Not just solve X. I And that sounds like a hard (therefore interesting) problem! There were two separate points: 1) Finding a simple solution to a problem can be hard 2) Solving an ‘easy’ problem quickly enough can be hard
johnnyanmac 3y ago
Well, not easy but it's not exactly a crazy proof to derive for anyone who spends time on formal proofs. This was probably derived centuries before Taylor solved an entire series of problems in one fell stroke.

by dacryn 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

acer4666 3y ago

"easy, just time consuming" ... Also known as hard

throwaway14356 3y ago
If the easy task involves 7 things all straight forwards. You get 6 opportunities to waste time in between. Each sub task completed (to me at least) seems like the perfect time to look out the window, check email, have a snack etc but you wouldn't [say] half way typing a sentence. You could but won't.

coldtea 3y ago

Then you didn't have an easy problem to begin with, you had a hard one ("summing too many numbers fast enough") [1]. Also I think that the parent didn't mean "as quickly as possible" in the execution speed or algorithm sense, he meant in the clock time sense: getting it solved quickly and moving on. So in their (and mine) formulation, the problem is easy by definition. It's not an "easy problem turned had because it has to be optimized for speed". I thought that your objection was that finding a simple solution would be hard itself (which wouldn't be the case if the problem is easy as in "easy to solve"). [1] not that coming with a basic series summation formula is "hard" (except you're Gauss, and you're the first mathematician doing it, the rest just need to know how to search for it), but I'll accept it as hard for the sake of argument.

lowkey_ 3y ago
> Then you didn't have an easy problem to begin with, you had a hard one ("summing too many numbers fast enough") [1]. That’s exactly what the initial comment said: > The "solve X as quickly as possible" is now the problem. Not just solve X. I And that sounds like a hard (therefore interesting) problem! There were two separate points: 1) Finding a simple solution to a problem can be hard 2) Solving an ‘easy’ problem quickly enough can be hard

johnnyanmac 3y ago

Well, not easy but it's not exactly a crazy proof to derive for anyone who spends time on formal proofs. This was probably derived centuries before Taylor solved an entire series of problems in one fell stroke.