Hacker News Reader

Comment by alstonite | Hacker News Reader

This feels like a classic example of the concept that simple ≠ easy

In that sense most things are simple. Though it's also simple to over simplify. Since often simplicity arises out of the accumulation of expert analysis rather than being obvious from the get go. Which I think is just as important as what you say:

  Simple != easy
  Simple != obvious
  Simple != intuitive
  Simple != easy to understand

I think if people remembered these things then things would be more simple. I'll add one more relationship

  Elegant == Simple
  Simple  != elegant

Simple means not complex, means not composed of even simpler parts. A twelve step plan is literally a list of simpler parts, making it not simple. Most things are complex, since there are so many ways to combine simples. It is an ironic title.

  > Simple means not complex

I disagree. Most things are complex, yet most things are also simple.

Don't forget that words are overloaded so they only mean things in context. Words are both simple and complex because of this.

As an example: the rules to the game of life are simple. The outcomes are complex. The rules cannot even be decomposed further, making them first principles of that universe.

  >  means not composed of even simpler parts

These would really be "first principles". Which is a form of simplicity. Being the simplest something can be, yet that sentence itself conveys that "simple" relies on context and in a continuum.

This relationship of "simple yet complex" is quite common. We could say the same thing about chaotic functions like the double pendulum. It is both simple and complex.

> Simple means not complex, means not composed of even simpler parts.

“Simple” is obviously subjective and context-dependent, but I don’t agree with that.

Getting a bowl of cereal is simple, yet still composed of several simple steps.

> Simple means not complex, means not composed of even simpler parts.

Is that formally defined and widely accepted? If not, I don’t think your argument holds because almost nothing is simple based on what you said.

Yeah kind of feels like "writing a hit novel is simple - you just need a plot that is engaging, well written prose, and a satisfying story arc".

I mean... yeah kind of obvs. Very "rest of the owl".

Well, that wouldn’t give you a “hit” novel. That would give you a good novel. Hit != Good

Reply on news.ycombinator.com