[aatd86]

On the contrary, I've found the article quite refreshing.

Using eigen isn't such a big issue if you understand it as the eigen in eigenvector.

It's about implementing orthogonal features i.e. Solving non overlapping concerns. Having one way of doing things. Make things easier, less cluttered.

The exposé is right on the money and actually even explains it.

Perhaps the faux intellectualism is on the other side... <_<

[mjburgess]

> Shishir Mehrotra (of Coda) wrote about the importance of “Eigenquestions” when framing problems, a term he coined, inspired from his math background:

> the eigenquestion is the question where, if answered, it likely answers the subsequent questions as well.

> This inspired me to name a symmetrical concept I’ve been pondering for a while: Eigensolutions. The eigensolution is a solution that addresses several key use cases, that previously appeared unrelated.

The original article is a complete muddle. It misdescribes framing, and then adds in a misdescription of eigenvectors. It's spending a lot of time and effort on misuse of language to no benefit -- plausibly the motivations were pseudo-intellectual, or at least, intellectually lazy.

The reason it has to do this is obvious: describing breaking problems down, framing problems, and asking fundamental questions isnt new; and no person discussing that seems impressive or a genius.

Throw in a few half-baked borrowed notions from rhetoric and mathematics, however, then it all seems so much more vital.

The whole thing is an exercise in writing 5x as much to say 1/2 of what's needed and playing to a dumb audience ready to lap it up. The dumb audience in both cases are non-tech manager types, who're endlessly desperate to acquire technical language to seem in-the-know.

[_0ffh]

> The whole thing is an exercise in writing 5x as much to say 1/2 of what's needed

That thing right there is what I despise most in non-fiction/non-recreational reading!

A good text says what it wants to say in as few words as possible while remaining easily intelligible to the intended audience.

Clarity & conciseness are the central virtues!

[aatd86]

Maybe you could try to be a bit charitable and understand what they meant because I don't think that is so bad.

Of course it could have been said in other, simpler terms perhaps, but that can be attributed to stylistic choices. I'm not too offended by that.

It's rare that people rethink something in terms of (multi) linear algebra, it can be a good reframing for an idea.

[nerdponx]

This is a very charitable interpretation. I got the impression that the author didn't know what "eigen" meant and borrowed it because it sounded good, and it was a stretch in the original context as well. That doesn't mean it can't be reframed in a way that makes sense, but I'm not seeing what you're seeing in the author's intent.

[aatd86]

The way I see it, the author might be trying to model the process of solving a design problem in terms of PCA decomposition vs a mere multivariate regression.

Certainly in vogue given the focus on data analysis, AI/machine learning lately.

Doesn't seem too far-fetched. Ok some things could be better explained but overall the article is still nice in my opinion.

Found that entertaining.

[SantalBlush]

>Perhaps the faux intellectualism is on the other side... <_<

It really isn't. Nomenclatures in the sciences and other fields are used for the purpose of clarity and concision; they make communication more effective. For example, when a mathematician mentions an Eigenvalue, other mathematicians know specifically what this object is. That is the point.

When people borrow words from these nomenclatures and change their meaning, it makes their writing pretentious and bloated, not to mention less clear.

[aatd86]

That's really not how languages work.

Even between different scientific disciplines.

For example, what is covariance?

Besides, the criticism was overly pedantic, but alas. The explanation wasn't even that bad.

Decomposition of a design problem in a set of orthogonal questions is exactly what is being described. Solving then the problem by providing solutions that don't overlap is also what is being described.

And the author is right about mentioning that because it's not actually obvious that giving a solution to each "eigenquestions" provide a canonical basis for the solution space, so to speak.

Really it seems that people want to be pedantic just to be pedantic... I don't think such arrogance is warranted here.

[linuxdude314]

Eigenvalues have nothing to do with orthogonality.

You are further demonstrating the point that mixing this math language simply creates confusion.

[aatd86]

What's an eigenvalue without the corresponding eigenvector...

[esafak]

If you simply say "orthogonal features" you won't have to explain "eigenquestions".