-
Hi. In this lecture we’re talking about problem solving.
-
And we’re talking about the role that diverse perspectives play in finding solutions to problems.
-
So when you think about a problem,
-
perspective is how you represent it.
-
So remember from the previous lecture, we talked about landscapes.
-
We talked about landscape being a way to represent
-
the solutions along this axis
-
and the value of the solutions as the height.
-
And so this is metaphorically a way to represent
-
how someone might think about solving a problem:
-
Finding high points on their landscape.
-
What we want to do is take this metaphor and formalize it
-
and part of the reason for this course is to get better logic,
-
[in order to] think through things in a clear way.
-
So I’m going to take this landscape metaphor and turn it into a formal model.
-
So how do we do it?
-
The first thing we do is we formally define what a perspective is.
-
So we speak math to metaphor.
-
So what a perspective is going to be is
-
it’s going to be a representation of all possible solutions.
-
So it’s some encoding of the set of possible solutions to the problem.
-
Once we have that encoding of the set of possible solutions,
-
then we can create our landscape by just assigning a value to each one of those solutions.
-
And that will give us a landscape picture like you saw before.
-
Now most of us are familiar with perspectives,
-
even though we don’t know it.
-
Let me give some examples.
-
Remember when we took seventh grade math?
-
We learned about how to represent a point, how to plot points.
-
And we typically learned two ways to do it.
-
The first way was Cartesian coordinates.
-
So given a point, we would represent it
-
by and an X and a Y value in space.
-
So, it might be five units,
-
this would be the point, let’s say (5, 2).
-
It’s five units in the X direction, two units in the Y direction.
-
But we also learned another way to represent points,
-
and that was [polar] coordinates.
-
So we can take the same point and say,
-
there’s a radius, which is its distance from the origin,
-
and then there’s some angle theta,
-
which says how far we have to sweep out,
-
in order to sweep that radius out in order to get to the point.
-
So two totally reasonable ways to represent a point:
-
X and Y, R and theta.
-
Cartesian, polar.
-
Which is better?
-
Well, the answer? It depends.
-
Let me show you why.
-
Suppose I wanted to describe this line.
-
In order to describe this line I should use Cartesian coordinates,
-
’cause I can just say Y=3 and X moves from two to five.
-
It’s really easy.
-
But suppose I wanna describe this arc.
-
If I wanna describe this arc,
-
now Cartesian coordinates are gonna be fairly complicated,
-
and I’d be better off using polar coordinates,
-
because the radius is fixed
-
and I just talked about how the radius is—you know,
-
there’s this distance R,
-
and theta just moves from, you know, A to B, let’s say.
-
So depending on what I want to do.
-
If I want to look at straight lines, I should use Cartesian.
-
And if I want to look at arcs, I should probably use polar.
-
So, perspectives depend on the problem.
-
Now let’s think about where we want to go.
-
We want to talk about how perspectives help us find solutions to problems
-
and how perspectives help us be innovative.
-
Well, if you look at the history of science a lot of great breakthroughs—
-
you know, we think about Newton,
-
you know, his theory of gravity—
-
you can think about people actually having new perspectives on old problems.
-
Let’s take an example.
-
So, Mendeleev came up with the periodic table,
-
and in the periodic table he represents the elements by atomic weight.
-
He’s got them in these different columns.
-
In doing so, by organizing the elements by atomic weight
-
he found all sorts of structure.
-
So all the metals line one column, stuff like that.
-
Remember—from high school chemistry class.
-
That’s a perspective: It’s a representation of a set of possible elements.
-
He could’ve organized them alphabetically.
-
But that wouldn’t have made much sense.
-
So alphabetic representation wouldn’t give us any structure.
-
Atomic weight representation gives us a lot of structure.
-
In fact, when Mendeleev wrote down
-
all the elements that were around at the time according to atomic weight,
-
there were gaps in his representation.
-
There were holes for elements that were missing.
-
Those elements became scandium, gallium, and germanium.
-
They were eventually found ten to fifteen years later,
-
after he’d written down the periodic table:
-
People went out and were able to find the missing elements.
-
That perspective, atomic weight,
-
ended up being a very useful way to organize our thinking about the elements.
-
We do it all the time now.
-
When you have any sort of task,
-
you’ll find that you’re actually using some sort of perspective.
-
Suppose that you’re hiring someone.
-
And you’ve got a bunch of recent college graduates who apply for a job.
-
And you’ve gotta think,
-
“Okay, how do I organize all these applicants?”
-
Let’s say 500 applicants.
-
One thing you could do is you could organize them by GPA:
-
Take the highest GPA down to the lowest GPA.
-
That’s be one representation.
-
And you might do that if you valued competence or achievement.
-
But you might also value work ethic.
-
And if that were the case you might instead organize
-
those same CV’s or application files by how thick they are.
-
[Those who’re going to do the] really thick ones are people who work really, really hard.
-
They’ve accomplished a lot.
-
Well, the third thing you might do is you might value creativity.
-
And you might say,
-
“Well, let’s put the ones that are sort of most colorful, most interesting over here.
-
And the ones that are least colorful and least interesting over here.”
-
That’s the third way to do it.
-
Now depending on what you’re hiring for,
-
depending on who the applicants are,
-
any one of these might be fine.
-
The only point I’m trying to make here is that there’s different ways to organize these applicants.
-
In each one of those ways you organize—
-
whether it’s in your head,
-
or whether it’s formally laying them out in some way—
-
is a perspective.
-
And those perspectives will determine how hard the problem will be for you.
-
Let me explain why.
-
Now I want to go back to the landscape metaphor.
-
And when I think of that landscape as being rugged,
-
and by rugged I mean that it doesn’t look like a single peak,
-
that there’s lots of peaks on it.
-
And I want to formalize this notion of peaks.
-
And I do so as follows:
-
I’m going to define what I call a local optima.
-
A local optima is a point such that
-
if you look at the points on either side of it,
-
they’re lower in value.
-
So it’s sort of a point that locally is the highest possible value.
-
So if I look at this particular rugged landscape again,
-
there’s three local optima: 1, 2, 3.
-
At any one of these three points, I’d be stuck:
-
If I looked to the left or to the right,
-
I wouldn’t find a solution that’s better.
-
So we think about what makes a good perspective:
-
A good perspective is going to be a perspective that doesn’t have many local optima.
-
A bad perspective is going to be one that has a lot of local optima.
-
Let me give you an example, okay?
-
So, suppose I’m coming up with a candy bar.
-
Suppose I’m tasked with coming up with a new candy bar.
-
So I have my team of chefs make a whole bunch of different confections for me to try,
-
and I want to find the very best one.
-
But there’re so many of them, there’s so many possibilities,
-
that I’m not even sure how to think about it.
-
But one way to represent those candy bars might be by the number of calories that they had.
-
So I can organize all the different things they make by number of calories.
-
And if I did that, maybe I’d have three local optima.
-
So that’s a reasonable way to represent these possible candy bars.
-
Alternatively, I might represent those candy bars
-
by masticity, which is chew time—
-
how long it takes to chew ’em.
-
So these would be the ones that maybe only take two minutes to chew.
-
And these may take twenty minutes to chew.
-
Well, chew time is probably not the best way to look at a candy bar.
-
And so, as a result, I’m going to have a landscape with many, many more peaks.
-
And so, because it’s got many more peaks, that’s more places I could get stuck.
-
So it’s not as good as a way to represent the possible solutions.
-
It’s not as good a perspective.
-
The best perspective would be what we call a Mount Fuji landscape,
-
the ideal landscape that just has one peak.
-
And these are called Mount Fuji landscapes
-
because if you’ve ever been to Japan,
-
and you look at Mount Fuji, it looks pretty much like this.
-
Actually not quite like this, there’s like snow on the top.
-
But for the most part, it looks just like one giant cone.
-
If you’re on a Mount Fuji landscape,
-
if you’re sitting at some point,
-
you can always just climb your way right up to the top.
-
So these single-peak landscapes are really good
-
because you’ve basically taken a problem
-
and made it very, very simple.
-
What would be an example of a Mount Fuji landscape?
-
I’m going to take a famous example.
-
So, a famous example comes from scientific management,
-
and due to Frederick Taylor.
-
Taylor famously solved for the optimal size of a shovel.
-
So let’s think about the shovel size landscape.
-
So, on this axis, I’ve got the size of the shovel.
-
And on this axis, I’ve got the value.
-
And what do I mean by the value?
-
I don’t mean how much I can sell the shovel for,
-
I mean it’s like how useful the shovel is at the task.
-
So let’s suppose we’re shoveling coal
-
and I want to think about
-
how many pounds of coal can some[one] shovel in a day
-
as a function of the size.
-
So let’s start out here where the size is zero.
-
So this is the size of the pan.
-
If I have a shovel has a pan of size zero,
-
that’s commonly known as a stick
-
and we can’t get anything.
-
We’re not going to shovel anything with a stick.
-
Well, if I make it bigger,
-
you know, make it the size of maybe like a little spoon or something,
-
then we can shovel a little bit.
-
And as I make the shovel bigger and bigger and bigger,
-
we, whoever, my workers, can shovel more and more coal.
-
But at some point, the shovel’s going to get a little bit too big.
-
And it’s going to be too heavy to lift.
-
And the worker’s going to get tired,
-
and I’ll shovel less,
-
he’ll shovel less and less and less and less.
-
And then eventually get to some point where the shovel’s so big
-
that he can’t even lift it,
-
and it’s as useless as the stick.
-
So if I look at value in terms of how much coal the person can shovel in a day is a function of the size of the shovel.
-
I’m going to get a single-peaked landscape.
-
That’s going to be an easy problem to solve.
-
And this idea, that we could represent scientific problems in this way—
-
or we could put engineering problems in this way—and then climb our way to peaks,
-
is the basis is something called scientific management
-
And the idea was that you could then
-
by finding these high points on these landscapes,
-
find optimal solutions.
-
We’re only going to find out the optimal solution for sure
-
if your hill climbed like this—if it’s single peaked.
-
If it’s rugged and looks like this mess,
-
looks like Mount Fuji landscape you’re fine,
-
but if it looks like this mess, this masticity landscape,
-
if you have a bad perspective,
-
well then if you climbed hills
-
you could get stuck just about anywhere.
-
So what you’d like is you’d like a Mount Fuji landscape,
-
And in the case of simple things like this shovel, that’s easy to get.
-
Let me give you another example.
-
This one’s a lot of fun.
-
This is a favorite game of mine called Sum to fifteen
-
and was developed by Herb Simon
-
who’s a Nobel Prize winner in economics.
-
And Sum to fifteen was developed to show people
-
why diverse perspectives are so useful,
-
why different ways of representing a problem can make them easy,
-
can make them like Mount Fuji,
-
or can make them really difficult.
-
So here’s how Sum to fifteen works.
-
There’s cards numbered from one to nine face up on a table.
-
There’s nine cards in front of you.
-
There’s two players.
-
Each person.takes turns, taking a card.
-
until all the cards are gone, possibly—it could end sooner.
-
If anybody ever holds three cards that add up to exactly 15, they win.
-
That’s the game. So, really simple.
-
Nine cards. Alternate taking cards.
-
If you ever get exactly three that sum to fifteen you win.
-
So let me show you a game.
-
Here’s a game between two people,
-
[let’s] call them Paul and David.
-
Paul goes first. Now you’d think when you play this game
-
the thing to do would be to choose the five.
-
Paul chooses the four, which is sort of an odd choice.
-
David goes next so he takes the five.
-
Paul then takes the six.
-
Now the six is a strange choice
-
because four plus six plus five equals fifteen.
-
So it looks like there is no way that he can win.
-
Well this will be confusing to Doug.
-
So Doug’s going to take the eight.
-
Now notice eight plus five equals thirteen.
-
So that means Paul has to take the two.
-
So he takes the two.
-
Well think about what happens next:
-
Four plus two is six.
-
So if Doug doesn’t take the nine, he’s going to lose.
-
But six plus two is eight.
-
So if Doug doesn’t take the seven he’s going to lose.
-
So what you’ve got here is that Paul has won.
-
No matter what Doug does, Paul’s going to win the game.
-
Now this is a pretty tricky game, right?
-
It was developed by a Nobel Prize winner.
-
You could imagine there’s lots of strategy involved.
-
I want to show you this game in a different perspective.
-
Remember the magic square from seventh grade math?
-
Every row adds up to fifteen—
-
8+3+4, 1+5+9, 6+7+2 —
-
so does every column—
-
8+1+6 sums up to fifteen;
-
3+5+7 sums up to fifteen—
-
and even the diagonals—
-
eight, five, two is fifteen;
-
six, five, four is fifteen.
-
Every row, every column, every diagonal sum up to fifteen.
-
Let me show you this game again on the Magic Square.
-
So, it’s just a different perspective on “Sum to Fifteen”.
-
Paul goes first, and takes the four.
-
Doug goes next and takes the five.
-
Paul takes the six, which is an odd choice, because now he can’t win.
-
Doug then takes the eight, Paul blocks him with the two.
-
But now it turns out, either the nine or seven will let Paul win.
-
What game is this?
-
Well, you’re right, it’s tic-tac-toe.
-
Sum to fifteen is just tic-tac-toe,
-
but on a different perspective, using a different perspective.
-
So if you turn Sum to Fifteen—
-
if you moved the cards 1 to 9 and put them in the magic square—
-
what you do is you create a Mount Fuji landscape In a sense:
-
You make the problem really simple.
-
So a lot of great breakthroughs,
-
like the periodic table,
-
Newton’s Theory of Gravity,
-
those are perspectives on problems
-
that turned something that was really difficult to figure out
-
into something that suddenly makes a lot of sense,
-
very easy to see the solution.
-
At least it’s something I call in my book, one of my books,
the difference,
-
I call this the Savant Existence Theorem.
-
For any problem that’s out there,
-
there exists some way to represent it,
-
so that you turn it into a Mt. Fuji problem.
-
Now, why is that?
-
Well, it’s actually fairly straightforward.
-
All you have to do is,
-
if you’ve got all the solutions here represented on this thing,
-
you put the very best one in the middle.
-
And then put the worst ones at the end.
-
And then just sort of line up the solutions in such a way
-
so that you turn it into a Mount Fuji.
-
So it’s very straightforward.
-
Now the thing is, in order to make the Mount Fuji,
-
you’d have to know the solution already.
-
This isn’t a good way to solve problems
-
but the point is, it exists.
-
So it’s always the possibility
-
that someone could look at particular problem and said,
-
“Hey, what if think of it this way?”
-
And doing so turn something that was really rugged
-
into something that looks like Mount Fuji.
-
Here is the flip side though.
-
There is a ton of bad perspectives.
-
So just like there’s these Mount Fuji perspectives,
-
there’s also lots and lots of horrible ways to look at problems.
-
Think about this: Suppose I have just ten alternatives
-
and I want to think about what are all the different ways I can just put them in a line.
-
Well there’s ten things I could put first,
-
nine things I could put second,
-
eight things I could put third and so on.
-
So there’s 10 × 9 × 8 × 7 × 6 × 5 × 4 × 3 × 2 × 1 perspectives.
-
Most of those are going to not be very good.
-
They’re not going to organize this set of solutions in any useful way.
-
Particularly, only a few of them are going to create Mount Fujis.
-
So we think about the value of perspectives, what we get is this:
-
There’s really good ones out there,
-
that insightful, smart people can come up
-
with really good representations of problem[s]
-
to make the landscapes less rugged.
-
If we just think about things in random ways,
-
we’re likely to get a landscape that’s so rugged
-
that we’re going to get stuck just about everywhere.
-
We’re not going to be able to find good solutions to the problem.
-
And we’re going to hit things that look like the masticity landscape,
-
and we’re going to get things with lots and lots of peaks.
-
Let’s move on now and talk about how we move on these landscapes.
-
So once I got our landscape, how do I find better solutions?
-
Are there other alternatives to just sort of climbing a hill?
-
Because that hill climbing idea really only works in one dimension.
-
What if I’ve got all sorts of dimensions?
-
How do I think about…
-
(Just a sec…)
-
So what have we learned?
-
First thing we’ve learned is that when we go about trying to solve a problem,
-
when we encode it in some way,
-
that’s a perspective.
-
And a perspective creates peaks; it creates these local optima.
-
So a better perspectives have fewer local optima.
-
Worse perspectives have lots of local optima.
-
And if you think about how many perspectives are out there,
-
we just saw there’s billions of them.
-
Because there’s billions of perspectives,
-
most of those probably aren’t very useful.
-
Some of them, though, turn problems into Mount Fujis.
-
And sometimes it takes a genius—
-
it takes a Newton, it takes a Mendeleev—
-
to come up with a way of representing reality
-
so that something that was incredibly rugged
-
becomes Mount Fuji–like.
-
Other times, if you think about the size of a shovel,
-
that problem most of us could probably figure out a way that problem just by shovel size,
-
so that it becomes a Mount Fuji.
-
The big point is this:
-
When we go about solving problems, the first thing we do is we encode them.
-
We have some representation of the problem.
-
That representation determines how hard the problem will be.
-
If we represent it in such a way that it’s a Mount Fuji, it’s easy.
-
If we represent it in such a way that it looks like that masticity landscape,
-
it’s probably going to be fairly hard.
-
Where we want to go next,
-
is we want to talk about once we’ve got this representation of the possible solutions,
-
once we have that landscape, so to speak,
-
how do we search on that landscape?
-
So one thing we’ve talked about was climbing hills.
-
But there’s lots of different ways you can climb hills.
-
That’s what we’ll talk about next: the heuristics we use on a landscape.
-
Thanks.