Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mannykannot 3037 days ago
I am not entirely convinced by the 'most problems are exponentially hard' argument, as problem-solving often has synergistic effects - e.g. consider calculus, developed in solving the problem of planetary orbits, but useful for so much more.

On the other hand, trying to discern a general rule from historical data is complicated by the fact that the number of problem-solvers has been growing exponentially.

1 comments

I think the better argument is that most "breakthroughs" are exponentially hard, or we wouldn't consider them breakthroughs!
'Exponential' means something more specific than 'big' or 'largest in class'.
Exponential is probably the easiest way to say "a search without usable gradients in a high-dimensional problem space."
'Breakthrough' means something less specific than 'a solution to a problem having a search without usable gradients in a high-dimensional problem space.' This is rather beside the point, however, as the the claim that kicked off this thread (most problems are exponentially hard) is about the difficulty of problem-solving in general, not the subset of problems that are pretty much hard by definition, in that their solution was/would be a breakthrough.