"...dynamic programming, a fancy term for breaking a big problem down into subproblems which are easier to solve. (Note: Not the technical definition)"
Is the author trying to redefine what Dynamic Programming means or is he just totally confusing its reader by actually using a DP algo but saying he's not using the technical definition!?
I mean: he's basically saying that Dynamic Programming is "Divide and Conquer". I'm not sure I follow him.
Especially seen that, contrarily to memoization (yes, "memoization", not "memorization", there's no 'r'), DP doesn't just compute and cache what's necessary but computes everything. In that DP really doesn't look like "a subproblem which is easier to solve".
Dynamic programming has a very precise meaning: