A ‘Reasonable Amount of Time’

The concept of a ‘reasonable amount of time’ figures a fair bit in abstract computational complexity theory; but what is a ‘reasonable amount of time’ in practice?  This post outlines the problem of balancing between the two competing ideals of determinism and adaptability and offers a flexible working definition.  (Not to be taken too seriously: it’s summer vacation time.)

A standard text on combinatorial problems and optimisation algorithms – perhaps discussing the TSP, for example – might read something like:

“… so we tend not to be as interested in particular complexity values for individual problem instances as how these complexities change as the input problem size (n) increases.  Suppose then, that for a given problem, we can solve a problem instance of size n = L in a reasonable amount of time.  What then happens if we increase the size of the problem from n = L to n = L+1?  How much harder does the …?”

or, filling in a few gaps:

“… so we tend not to be as interested in particular complexity values for individual problem instances as how these complexities change as the input problem size (n) increases.  Suppose then that we can solve a TSP of 20 cities on a standard desktop PC in a reasonable amount of time.  What then happens if we increase the number of cities from 20 to 21?  How much longer does …?”

All good stuff, and sensible enough, but what’s this ‘reasonable amount of time’?

Continue reading


Reset?

Has this blog been looking a little stale of late?  Does it need a change of focus or direction?

[XKCD, https://xkcd.com/1854/]

Thoughts welcome: comment, reply, message Facebook, Twitter, etc. …


Technology Isn’t the Enemy: Reprise

Often, ‘simple says it best’!

Technology could help us all … but it won’t.


Spurious Accuracy

“At one point, the drone was estimated to be approximately 98 feet from the passenger jet.”

“Estimated?”  “Approximately?”  98 feet actually looks astonishingly accurate doesn’t it?  Is someone having a laugh?  No, not exactly; it’s just the sort of thing that happens when people do silly things with numbers.

We’ll come back to that one.  For now, to get an idea of what’s going on, let’s take another example, adapted from Darrell Huff‘s magnificent How to Lie with Statistics

Suppose you’re a would-be statistical researcher and you’ve decided to write something on how long people sleep.  You’re going to talk to 100 people (which isn’t a huge number for a study but things have been published on less data) about it.  And here’s where it starts to go wrong …

Continue reading