3 ms·
Been there, done that. It is not as glorious as it sounds. I had some very strong intuitions about some obscure computer science problem (maybe 10 people worke
by ma2rten 13y ago
Been there, done that.
It is not as glorious as it sounds. I had some very strong intuitions about some obscure computer science problem (maybe 10 people worked on it worldwide, but I think they gave up already). I was thinking about this problem for at least one year, with some periods of very intensive thinking. I could have really used that time more productively, because that was already quite a busy period for me, but the solution seemed so close.
After about one year, I finally had a solution mapped out, which I think would work. However, there were some major implementation problems (memory complexity). That was the time when I was finally able to let it go.
So the advise that I would give to people is: focus on real-world problem, that real people have.
- witek 13y agoI disagree. We often don't know what the consequences could be of solving abstract problems by enthusiasts. Whole avenues of science were opened this way.
- claudius 13y ago> focus on real-world problem, that real people have. Because the world would be a much better place today if we hadn’t bothered about quantum mechanics, special and general relativity or even advanced mathematics to handle these topics. Sure, this sort of thing won’t solve the problems of this specific time period, but it might well be relevant to a future generation’s problems.
- bzbarsky 13y agoQuantum mechanics solved a bunch of real world problems that were relevant at the time. As one example, people were trying to predict heat capacities of gases (for things like chemical engineering industrial processes) and the theory they had, based on equipartition, produced results that didn't match experiment at room temperature. And we're not talking a few percent mismatch; we're talking significant differences. Special relativity likewise addressed specific experimental problems people were having. General relativity you may have more of a case for.
- w1ntermute 13y agoThe issue is that we celebrate the people who follow Feynman's approach and succeed, but forget all those who (like yourself) end up failing. It's a simple matter of survivorship bias. For each person who "thinks really hard" about a particular problem of this magnitude and finds a solution, there are hundreds, if not thousands, who end up failing.
- freyr 13y agoIf we knew ahead of time which tough problems have elegant solutions, it would save us so much time and effort. Alas, that's not the nature of research.
- w1ntermute 13y agoMy point is simply that we should treat Feynman's algorithm as a magic bullet. You have to recognize that it fails a lot more than it succeeds.
- ky3 13y agoIs it even an algorithm though? It's so imprecise a rule of thumb that evaluating it as a failure or a success is utterly arbitrary.
- kerneis 13y agoYou should remember that the Feynman algorithm is a joke told by one of his colleagues (Murray Gell-Mann) to mock Feynman's story-telling. It has never been intended as a real algorithm that should be applied by anybody. Previously on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1520075 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1520075