In Lecture 3, Gusfield gives the worst-case analysis of MergeSort by setting up a recurrence relation and solving it by unwrapping.
La Life’s insight:
Rather trivial insight here:
But worth noting that this type of thing comes up all the time in proofs or reasoning: it’s a matter of judgement and experience to decide what you can discard from a formal expression yet retain a "meaningful answer".
To argue that "meaning" is in effect "meaningless", i.e. is in all cases just a causally ineffective epiphenomenon of underlying Shannon information, so to speak, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny of how all this apparently purely formal scientific apparatus is actually designed: in many cases as soon as you start to try and formalize processes and causes, you will make some kind of decision to discard or simplify something, with **everybody agreeing** that the answer will remain meaningful.
It’s not possible to argue that meaning is not operative in a context where people prove such statements and make judgement calls about what things mean.
from A quoi sert la connaissance ? What is knowledge for? | Scoop.it http://www.scoop.it/t/a-quoi-sert-la-connaissance-what-is-knowledge-for/p/4010598348/2013/11/07/time-analysis-of-mergesort