Are you trying to learn Dijkstra/Hoare/Floyd style programming techniques or are you trying to understand the idea of usage of "Markov Processes" (totally unnecessary) in the comment?
The general problem solving approach. What the two sibling replies to yours are talking about.
Ah, this is a more general question on which it is hard to give specific suggestions because "problem-solving" can mean anything/everything without knowing your exact context.
However you might want to start with The Thinker's Toolkit by Morgan Jones. This gives you a catalog of models which teaches you to structure your requirements born from problem analysis in various ways to aid problem-solving.
I don't think it threatens anyone, it may simply come across as pretentious.
I guess I can understand that.
I’m not making any bold claims about inventing anything or anything like that in fact, there are multiple times where I say I’m not doing anything special.
I’m just describing that my mental process resembles and steps the same way a markov process does (or OODA or SPA if you prefer) and that not everybody thinks like that and that and I found that certain types of scientific thinkers also have that same type of thinking. The Dykstra explanation there lined up with my experience
I cant control how people react to that so :shrug:
Twisol's point that you failed to find is that you could choose to give AndrewKemendo the benefit of the doubt. Clearly there is something novel about the way Dijistra thought and worked. Most of us don't do things that way - formulate our thinking, then work towards one perfect first draft. AndrewKemendo saw that and said "I identify, I'm the same way", and tried to describe what his way of thinking sounds like. If…
I know you mean well but i am somewhat with biggestbrain1 on this. The comment just comes off as mere posturing (eg. "I know because I have the same type of brain") and if you actually think about what is written down all i see is empty verbiage and something which could have been said simpler and more directly (for example there is no need to bring in "Markov Processes" here). Dijkstra's (and Floyd/Hoare's) programm…
These commentaries have such nuance and focus it reads like a work of art. I appreciate the many people who contributed to this thread. A true critical reading of each person's comments. It's absolutely beautiful.
I don't think it threatens anyone, it may simply come across as pretentious.
I guess I can understand that. I’m not making any bold claims about inventing anything or anything like that in fact, there are multiple times where I say I’m not doing anything special. I’m just describing that my mental process resembles and steps the same way a markov process does (or OODA or SPA if you prefer) and that not everybody thinks like that and that and I found that certain types of scientific thinkers a…
> I cant control how people react to that so :shrug:
No, but you should be aware of how you come across so that people don't dismiss the substance of what you are trying to say because of the form in which you say it.
There’s no other way to do it for this type of a brain. I know because I have the same type of brain. I spend 90% of my time formulating descriptions of the problem and the desired end state Hallucinating futures where the state of the world is in a state that I either wanted to be or that somebody’s asking me to build Once you know your final end state, then you need to evaluate the current state of the things that…
Why are you using a Markov process though to model time-dependent likelihood pathways ? Doesn’t make sense. Your next step depends on much more than just knowing where you are at S. One needs to account for the history of where you were before. Or maybe you’re just using technical words with precise meanings to describe a vague imprecise heuristic?
> time-dependent likelihood pathways
Future reward trajectories are THE core focus of multi-step MDP, see Sutton [1]
"Now we consider transitions from state-action pair to state-action pair, and learn the value of state-action pairs. Formally these cases are identical: they are both Markov chains with a reward process. The theorems assuring the convergence of state values under TD(0) also apply to the corresponding algorithm for action values: "
I wasn't going to differentiate in my original post between sub-types of "cycles" within increasingly complex MDP's for long sequence reward estimation:
Why are you using a Markov process though to model time-dependent likelihood pathways ? Doesn’t make sense. Your next step depends on much more than just knowing where you are at S. One needs to account for the history of where you were before. Or maybe you’re just using technical words with precise meanings to describe a vague imprecise heuristic?
> time-dependent likelihood pathways Future reward trajectories are THE core focus of multi-step MDP, see Sutton [1] "Now we consider transitions from state-action pair to state-action pair, and learn the value of state-action pairs. Formally these cases are identical: they are both Markov chains with a reward process. The theorems assuring the convergence of state values under TD(0) also apply to the corresponding a…
You’re just quoting from Sutton’s reinforcement learning book, which proposes a learning algorithm with a Markov process assumption.
Markov processes are nice because they are simple objects and therefore have nice properties and solid mathematical proofs.
Many mathematical models are studied because they have nice theoretical properties and one can prove theorems about them. This should not be mistaken with an actual mechanistic explanation for complex emergent phenomena like human decisions.
Dijkstra is a wonderful source of memorable quotes and hot takes from the early days of software. A sampling: > “The competent programmer is fully aware of the limited size of his own skull. He therefore approaches his task with full humility, and avoids clever tricks like the plague.” (Dijkstra, 1972) > “The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offense.” (Dijkstra…
I will get downvoted for that bur I will ask anyway. So what exactly are his achievements? After reading the article it seems that he mostly produced hot takes, while others did the actual heavy lifing. Goto considered harmful? And some algorithm that would probably be found by someone else? Will Linus get a monument made of pure gold when he dies?
This is perhaps the most verbose and ridiculous way of saying "I think about how to solve the problem". It feels like a parody with the prompt of: how a person who scored 170 on an online IQ test would describe how their brain works.
Why does my description threaten you??
Some people don't interpret earnestness correctly, and somehow feel like they have to insult it or make fun of it. I've had people think I'm "using big words to try to sound smart"... I wasn't trying any such thing, I'm just a thoughtful person and verbose, introducing subtlety and thoroughness to each point that I make. I don't care if someone thinks I'm smart or not, but I'm sure as hell never trying to make them think I am because I don't care and never will. If someone would rather hear the 5-year-old-child-tier phrase "I think about how to solve the problem", they can find a conversation with someone else who speaks that way.
> "Whether written using a fountain pen or typewriter, Dijkstra’s technical reports were composed at a speed of around three words per minute. “The rest of the time,” he remarked, “is taken up by thinking.”9 For Dijkstra, writing and thinking blended into one activity. When preparing a new EWD, he always sought to produce the final version from the outset." > "He also never purchased a computer. Eventually, in the la…
There’s no other way to do it for this type of a brain. I know because I have the same type of brain. I spend 90% of my time formulating descriptions of the problem and the desired end state Hallucinating futures where the state of the world is in a state that I either wanted to be or that somebody’s asking me to build Once you know your final end state, then you need to evaluate the current state of the things that…
Yeah, that's awesome! I sometimes find it very challenging to comprehensively "imagine" the end state and all its "moving parts", but I realize the value in doing so, and work at skill (if "skill" is the right word haha)... I can see the power in determining a proper "translation" that goes from the current to the imagined, and that very approach has been extremely beneficial to me in life. Many people have extreme difficulty doing this! I know a couple people who find it nearly impossible to imagine potential futures in the context of a goal or target. They can only deal with the immediate stuff, OR the future goal/target must be plainly and simply outlined to be uhh.. "parseable", if that makes sense. Anyway, thanks for sharing your perspective, I thought it's interesting to read and think about.