Stan Nilsen wrote:
> A test of understanding is if one can give a correct *explanation* for any
> and all of the possible outputs that it (the thing to understand) produces.
Russell Wallace wrote:
Unfortunately, "explanation" is just as ambiguous a word as
"understanding", so while the above may be true, it isn't necessarily
very helpful :P
-------------------------------------------
I think it is important to note that understanding a subject does not mean that
you understand everything about the subject. This is not a reasonable
proposal. I think Stan is saying that understanding an algorithm is giving an
*explanation* for all possible outputs. That is not a realistic appraisal of
how programmers *understand* an algorithm.
While the word explanation is as ambiguous as the word understanding, the
discussion of the subject should help to build an appreciation of the concepts.
For example one might associate certain kinds of inputs with processes that
operate on them and the kinds of outputs that are produced for this class of
input and therefore have the beginning of an explanation of 'how the algorithm
works'.
I think this example makes it clear, that a partial understanding of an
algorithm is just that: partial understanding.
Jim Bromer
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
