Can all supposed difficult problems be broken down to simple ones?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hacker Jack
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Broken
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the ability to break down complex problems into simpler components for better understanding. It references Nicklaus Wirth's concept of stepwise refinement, which involves decomposing complex solutions into manageable parts, and highlights that this approach can be applied from various directions. The conversation touches on the nature of the brain's focus, questioning whether it processes one thing at a time or if there are underlying processes at work that remain unrecognized. The importance of approximations in scientific problem-solving is also noted, as they can simplify complex issues but may lead to loss of information. Additionally, there are side comments about the appropriateness of avatars in technical discussions, suggesting that they can affect the perceived seriousness of the conversation. The thread concludes with a note on the limitations of breaking down problems, emphasizing that understanding may still elude even when following logical steps.
Hacker Jack
Messages
10
Reaction score
14
I am wondering if you take any problem you consider difficult or complex can it be broken down to be understood in simple parts and successfully understood as a whole. Is there some stuff you consider difficult and there is just no getting around it.

Is it the nature of the brain to focus on one thing at a time to understand something or is there so much more stuff going on in the background that our brain does that we don't understand?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
From your username I presume an interest in computer science. Nicklaus Wirth uses the interesting term stepwise refinement: refining or decomposing a complex solution into simpler, though not necessarily discrete, solvable parts. Though sometimes confused with top-down and bottom-up approaches, the steps approach the problem space from any convenient direction.

Stepwise refinement applies to problems with solutions. Deciding whether stated problems can be solved probably requires complexity theory. Consider also the time and resources required to solve.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes sysprog and russ_watters
It depends on what you call "simple", but in science, we often use approximations that simplify the problem. Of course, every time you use an approximation, there are some information that is lost or things that cannot be taken into account. Nonetheless, by using approximations, you can often understand the general idea.
 
Hacker Jack said:
I am wondering if you take any problem you consider difficult or complex can it be broken down to be understood in simple parts and successfully understood as a whole. Is there some stuff you consider difficult and there is just no getting around it.

Is it the nature of the brain to focus on one thing at a time to understand something or is there so much more stuff going on in the background that our brain does that we don't understand?
What's up with your avatar? Are you a pirate or into death or something? How can I take your technical questions seriously when your avatar represents bad things?

1608859977214.png
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50 and marcusl
berkeman said:
What's up with your avatar? Are you a pirate or into death or something? How can I take your technical questions seriously when your avatar represents bad things?

View attachment 275047
Just as bad as this avatar:
1608863259325.png
 
If you could break down everything into arbitrarily simple steps you could teach calculus to a dog. How? Step by step.

I'm not even sure if the steps are the limit. It could be the current state of a problem, too: Where are we in a proof, what do we know about the objects we are working with at the moment, what do we still need to do?
If you have read some longer mathematical proofs then you probably know the feeling where you can follow every step, but in the end you don't really understand what was done because you are still missing deeper insight in the proof.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
Sorry, but we don't allow threads that ask "What if, and have no answer". Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes Bystander and Tom.G

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K