Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The two opposing voices is reminiscent of game theoretic proof methods. Terry Tao has a great answer on mathoverflow that puts it in personal terms about how he solves problems [0]:

> One specific mental image that I can communicate easily with collaborators, but not always to more general audiences, is to think of quantifiers in game theoretic terms. Do we need to show that for every epsilon there exists a delta? Then imagine that you have a bag of deltas in your hand, but you can wait until your opponent (or some malicious force of nature) produces an epsilon to bother you, at which point you can reach into your bag and find the right delta to deal with the problem. Somehow, anthropomorphising the "enemy" (as well as one's "allies") can focus one's thoughts quite well. This intuition also combines well with probabilistic methods, in which case in addition to you and the adversary, there is also a Random player who spits out mathematical quantities in a way that is neither maximally helpful nor maximally adverse to your cause, but just some randomly chosen quantity in between. The trick is then to harness this randomness to let you evade and confuse your adversary.

[0] https://mathoverflow.net/a/38882



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: