<story><title>The Law of Conservation of Complexity</title><url>http://nomodes.com/Larry_Tesler_Consulting/Complexity_Law.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jerf</author><text>Complexity is not conserved. It is a bound. A solution can not be &lt;i&gt;simpler&lt;/i&gt; than the problem, when both are viewed holistically and complexity is properly understood. (Yeah, I&amp;#x27;m handwaving, but at least I acknowledge it. I don&amp;#x27;t want to write twelve paragraphs defining &amp;quot;complexity&amp;quot; right now, because my &lt;i&gt;real&lt;/i&gt; point is....)&lt;p&gt;But the solution sure can be &lt;i&gt;more complicated&lt;/i&gt; than the problem.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>jfengel</author><text>That is more or less what TFA says: &amp;quot;Every application has an inherent amount of irreducible complexity.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Irreducible&amp;quot; means a bound, but it does not mean a constant.&lt;p&gt;The name is misleading to a scientist, who has a specific understanding of what &amp;quot;conservation&amp;quot; means. And in particular, a very specific notion of what a &amp;quot;conservation law&amp;quot; is. Which this does not follow.&lt;p&gt;Getting past the name, it&amp;#x27;s a useful adage. But the name adds unneeded complexity, placing a burden on people who are forced to learn a different intention for a well-understood term.</text></comment>
<story><title>The Law of Conservation of Complexity</title><url>http://nomodes.com/Larry_Tesler_Consulting/Complexity_Law.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jerf</author><text>Complexity is not conserved. It is a bound. A solution can not be &lt;i&gt;simpler&lt;/i&gt; than the problem, when both are viewed holistically and complexity is properly understood. (Yeah, I&amp;#x27;m handwaving, but at least I acknowledge it. I don&amp;#x27;t want to write twelve paragraphs defining &amp;quot;complexity&amp;quot; right now, because my &lt;i&gt;real&lt;/i&gt; point is....)&lt;p&gt;But the solution sure can be &lt;i&gt;more complicated&lt;/i&gt; than the problem.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>crimsonalucard</author><text>&amp;gt;A solution can not be simpler than the problem.&lt;p&gt;Problem: (4 primitives)&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  1 + 1 + 1 + 1
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
Solution (one primitive):&lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;&lt;code&gt;  4
&lt;/code&gt;&lt;/pre&gt;
If amount of primitives defines complexity you are wrong.&lt;p&gt;What&amp;#x27;s going on here is that you are using a different definition of complexity to construct your statement above. Most humans intuitively recognize your statement along with mine.&lt;p&gt;The issue here is that before we can even talk about complexity we have to come up with a formal definition that fits all forms of our intuition about what complexity actually is. Otherwise all arguments can become circular and pointless as everyone is talking about different things.&lt;p&gt;What is the formal definition of complexity? What is the thing that is being preserved here?</text></comment>