Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7619276" data-attributes="member: 4937">I work in software development.There is a general sense in the industry, that for two given methods for solving a problem, the one that is lower complexity tends to be the better solution.&nbsp; We are certainly encouraged to right rules that reduce complexity according to very similar measures as some have proposed regarding RPG rules - length of the rules, readability, number of branching paths, number of subsystems, depth of hierarchies, number of cross references, number of meta-rules, etc.&nbsp;&nbsp; The trouble is that it turns out that measuring any of those things in a meaningful manner is really hard, and often two metrics are in tension with each other - for example, you can make the rules more compact, but only at the cost of reducing readability, increasing cross references, and/or increasing the number of meta-rules.&nbsp;&nbsp; So then there is the problem of how you would weight the tradeoff.&nbsp;&nbsp; And then it turns out that things like space, complexity, and processing time are also trade offs, so that you can increase &quot;speed of play&quot; but only at the cost of longer and more complex rules, such as increasing the number of tables.So in short, if you could solve this problem in an academic sphere with relatively little economic impact, then you could solve this problem in an academic sphere with enormous economic impact, and probably set yourself up for a very prestigious prize in mathematics or economics.&nbsp;&nbsp; It would be certainly the sort of thing that could get you nominated for a Nobel prize or the like.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7619276, member: 4937"] I work in software development. There is a general sense in the industry, that for two given methods for solving a problem, the one that is lower complexity tends to be the better solution. We are certainly encouraged to right rules that reduce complexity according to very similar measures as some have proposed regarding RPG rules - length of the rules, readability, number of branching paths, number of subsystems, depth of hierarchies, number of cross references, number of meta-rules, etc. The trouble is that it turns out that measuring any of those things in a meaningful manner is really hard, and often two metrics are in tension with each other - for example, you can make the rules more compact, but only at the cost of reducing readability, increasing cross references, and/or increasing the number of meta-rules. So then there is the problem of how you would weight the tradeoff. And then it turns out that things like space, complexity, and processing time are also trade offs, so that you can increase "speed of play" but only at the cost of longer and more complex rules, such as increasing the number of tables. So in short, if you could solve this problem in an academic sphere with relatively little economic impact, then you could solve this problem in an academic sphere with enormous economic impact, and probably set yourself up for a very prestigious prize in mathematics or economics. It would be certainly the sort of thing that could get you nominated for a Nobel prize or the like. [/QUOTE]

Verification