(no subject)
Dec. 9th, 2006 11:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeletsre: http://ivanov-petrov.livejournal.com/531874.html?thread=16601250#t16601250
Let's say we have several problem generation modules ( Problemators), and we want to choose one of them to couple it to at least one of our problem solving modules ( Solvers). What would be the criteria for that?
Assuming problem compatiblity and unlimited ability of Solvers to deal with problems generated, the first thing that comes to mind is Value, i.e. the combined value of all solutions over the time of Solver use. Problemator that consistently generates problems with higher Values wins. Of course, it's not clear how we determine Value. It can be measured in Nobel prizes, or lives saved, or whatever. The main point is there has to be a Value calculation method. For example, double entry accounting is credited with enabling the current profit-based economy. I.e. our ability to compare different activities with regards to profits they generate allow us to select most profitable ones. Obviously, this approach selects for Problemators for which Value calculations can be made.
Sounds like a performance improvement problem.
A synthesis approach would be to come up with a Problemator that generates problems that none of the Solvers is capable of solving. This would be an indicator that new types of Solvers need to be created or a better Problemator-Solver matching procedure established.
cf Domain creation, growth, restructuring that I use in my Stanford lectures ( e.g. Session 10, slide 4).
Let's say we have several problem generation modules ( Problemators), and we want to choose one of them to couple it to at least one of our problem solving modules ( Solvers). What would be the criteria for that?
Assuming problem compatiblity and unlimited ability of Solvers to deal with problems generated, the first thing that comes to mind is Value, i.e. the combined value of all solutions over the time of Solver use. Problemator that consistently generates problems with higher Values wins. Of course, it's not clear how we determine Value. It can be measured in Nobel prizes, or lives saved, or whatever. The main point is there has to be a Value calculation method. For example, double entry accounting is credited with enabling the current profit-based economy. I.e. our ability to compare different activities with regards to profits they generate allow us to select most profitable ones. Obviously, this approach selects for Problemators for which Value calculations can be made.
Sounds like a performance improvement problem.
A synthesis approach would be to come up with a Problemator that generates problems that none of the Solvers is capable of solving. This would be an indicator that new types of Solvers need to be created or a better Problemator-Solver matching procedure established.
cf Domain creation, growth, restructuring that I use in my Stanford lectures ( e.g. Session 10, slide 4).
