Well, what can I tell you? This is what we were trained to do. Not think outside the box — way too common. We’ve been trained to think ‘real close to the box.’ I know what you’re thinking — think more like an attorney? No. Not even on the same planet. Attorneys solve problems, but always by finding the easiest solution to the problem; not the optimal solution. They miss the optimal solution, we think, because they weren’t trained to think ‘real close to the box.’ Like in linear or quadratic programming — the effect is the result of having two ‘hill-climbing’ algorithms. i.e., let’s say that both algorithms are placed in the Karakorum Mountain Range and set to optimize.. One algorithm goes local — it finds the highest peak based on where it was placed initially. It finds a 5,ooo meter peak. Not bad, you say? The other algorithm doesn’t go local — it goes global; it EXPLORES — and it finds the tallest peak in the RANGE, not just in the local VICINITY. It finds K2; an 8,000 meter peak.
One algorithm produces an optimized global solution while the other a highly localized and therefore useless and ineffective ‘solution’. At least to those of us that are thinking ‘real close to the box.’