News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Lost in Math. Parent comment

Re:Lost in Math by hliyan on Sunday July 01, 2018 @06:04AM (#17434918)
For me, "beauty" is an inverse function of entropy or disorder. The fewer the arbitrary constructs in a system (or theory), the more "beautiful" (or more accurately, elegant) it is. After all, the laws of physics are about finding recurring patterns in a mass of random observations. So I think it's reasonable to prefer theories that can explain a large number of random observations with a fewer number of laws. However, I suppose the argument of the book is that when we try to make our theories more simpler than reality actually is, we have a problem?

Edit: to try to answer your question, the goal of elegance/beauty in code is entirely about comprehensibility and not utility, is it not?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lost in Math by okket on Sunday July 01, 2018 @06:57AM (#17435062)
"As simple as possible, but not simpler." (often credited to Einstein)

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

That said, the whole field of science journalism and popular science book writing lives from violating these rules, making things much simpler than they actually are. But then again, the average person is a) not in charge of the physics experiments and b) tries to use these as a reference in a scientific paper is up for a surprise.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lost in Math by aj7 on Sunday July 01, 2018 @11:37AM (#17435977)
Experimental physics is not “a mass of random observations.”
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Lost in Math by hliyan on Sunday July 01, 2018 @12:21PM (#17436190)
I wasn't referring the experimental physics. I was referring to how we perceive the wold in the absence of physical laws.
[ Parent | on HN ]