I like this post, but calling the second concept in ITC tractability is confusing when everyone already knows ITN! Maybe it would have been better to call it something else, like “absolute tractability” or “attackability” or “doability” or something.
You think defining tractability as “% of problem solved / extra $” is confusing because the original 80k article defined it as “% of problem solved / % increase in resources”?
It adds confusion in that the term means two different things now and the original definition is more common. It subtracts confusion in that “% of problem solved / extra $” is more intuitive.
I like this post, but calling the second concept in ITC tractability is confusing when everyone already knows ITN! Maybe it would have been better to call it something else, like “absolute tractability” or “attackability” or “doability” or something.
You think defining tractability as “% of problem solved / extra $” is confusing because the original 80k article defined it as “% of problem solved / % increase in resources”?
It adds confusion in that the term means two different things now and the original definition is more common. It subtracts confusion in that “% of problem solved / extra $” is more intuitive.
I think in everyday usage, people don’t use “tractability” in such a precise way, so the slight change in definition doesn’t add confusion.