Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Don't you agree that if you can do something without holding state it's invariably simpler?

Only if the two solutions under consideration are really solving the same problems. Sam Boyer alludes to this very thing in his discussion of MVS:

"If there are two algorithms that satisfy the same requirements, and only one is NP-complete, you pick the other one. That’s axiomatic. Moreover, if you have only an NP-complete algorithm for a particular problem, finding a less complex alternative that does the same job is an electrifying discovery. When such an alternative algorithm is proposed, however, the inevitable question to be answered is whether it actually does meet the original requirements. [...] But, in avoiding SAT, MVS also cuts out some of the complexities that I believe are essential to the domain. Being essential, the problems don’t go away when MVS ignores them. Instead, they’re redistributed into other, often less obvious places. If reading the vgo blog posts gave you a general sense of unease that you couldn’t put your finger on, that might’ve been you intuitively sensing some of these redistributions." https://sdboyer.io/vgo/intro/




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: