|
|
|
|
|
by dlo
5375 days ago
|
|
I don't have enough information to make any conclusions here. But let me add to the discussion that more often than not, it is an order of magnitude (or more!) easier to look at someone else's solution and understand it than it is to arrive at the solution in the first place. I am even willing to believe that, perhaps if the problem were very well-defined, you might be able to solve it in an afternoon. But if you were in his situation, how long would it have taken you to characterize the problem so that you could solve it? Have you had successes doing "complicated stuff" for which there wasn't already something existing to key off of? In computer science, there is the notion of the NP-complete problem, for which there is no known efficient solution. But if a solution is found, it can be verified very quickly. I think the analogy holds here. |
|
Math is unreasonably effective. Just like knowledge of basic algorithmic analysis. I don't think that should be controversial.