comment on

Does anybody else think like this?

Yes!

And I have the same feelings about a lot of other stuff, including most of CS.

A problem described can be related to Knapsack or The Travalling Salesman Problem--correctly described as NP-hard or NP-complete--but it can still be solved in real time using Perl when the CS majors give up. I've done this many times.

Graph theory is, IMO, an abstraction too far. Graph terminology--nodes, edges, traversal etc.--in many cases, simply serves to obscure the details of the problems they describe, and in doing so, maks things which are straight forward to understand and implement, hard or impossible to do, because you can't see the trees cos the forest is in the way:)

Examine what is said, not who speaks.

Silence betokens consent.

Love the truth but pardon error.

In reply to Re: Empirically solving complex problems by BrowserUk
in thread Empirically solving complex problems by oakbox

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


There's more than one way to do things
	PerlMonks