Jim Bromer wrote:
-------------------------------------------
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.
Okay, I'll admit I wasn't thinking very broadly with my answer. My
troubleshooting career trained me to focus on "reverse engineering." My
frame of reference was being able to explain how things occur. Good
understanding was a big help in troubleshooting.
After thinking a bit more, I see that there are other ways to
"understand" that do not deal with "process." I can think of two cases
of a different kind of understanding (and there are others I'm sure)
Case 1 example: "Do you understand wood? There are many
"senses" to what wood is and does. When does one understand wood? And
how would a person explain wood?
Case 2 might be an event. "Do you understand the bridge failing and
crashing down into the river?" As an engineer there might be one way to
understand it. A person in a car on the bridge at the time has another
understanding. A government responsible for the bridge has another way.
A traffic engineer has another way.
So yes, it can be ambiguous to understand. One would need to be careful
to identify exactly what is being explained in an effort to communicate
an understanding.
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 might quibble with saying that an explanation is as ambiguous as an
understanding. An explanation should be focused whereas understanding
tends to "broaden." Isn't the purpose of an explanation to provide an
unambiguous understanding? I was having trouble putting explanation and
ambiguous together.
I think this example makes it clear, that a partial understanding of an
algorithm is just that: partial understanding.
Jim Bromer
<http://www.listbox.com>
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
it now.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
*agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now>
<http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | Modify
<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>
Your Subscription [Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
-------------------------------------------
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
