Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

Return to Answer

add 2 examples of wrong hypothesis
Source Link
Peter Krauss
Peter Krauss
  • 91
  • 3
  • 9

The Missing square puzzle problem is a good illustration. It illustrates a simple and universal problem/question/solution process, where "some illusion" causes complications.

There are a self-evident problem — the 1×1 hole in that arises on the second figure —, but the solution is evident only after we know (like an Egg of Columbus)... All people, experts and non-experts, agree that there is a problem.

enter image description here

  • normal user: thinks that
    "there are two equivalent figures, the 'total triangles' in a perfect 13×5 grid...",
    following with the question:

    • problem Y: "Why does the second equivalent triangle have a hole in it?".

  • expert user: think something like
    "oops, they are alike (close in shape), but not perfectly equivalent figures",
    following with the question:

    • problem X: "How to show that they are not perfect equivalents?".

The clever geometry-expert thinks in terms of close in shape geometries.

The normal user thinks, mistakenly, in terms of exact congruence. So, the use of wrong hypothesis, produce ill Y questions.

The "XY problem" as a specialization of the "wrong hypothesis behaviour"

You want to solve the real question-X, and you think in terms of an Y-context, and try to use question-Y. Instead of asking about context X, you ask about context Y.
(as @Gnome noticed above, but using other words)

So, "XY Problem" is only another (more specialized) term to say "Use of wrong working hypothesis". See examples at this question/answer.

The Missing square puzzle problem is a good illustration. It illustrates a simple and universal problem/question/solution process, where "some illusion" causes complications.

There are a self-evident problem — the 1×1 hole in that arises on the second figure —, but the solution is evident only after we know (like an Egg of Columbus)... All people, experts and non-experts, agree that there is a problem.

enter image description here

  • normal user: thinks that
    "there are two equivalent figures, the 'total triangles' in a perfect 13×5 grid...",
    following with the question:

    • problem Y: "Why does the second equivalent triangle have a hole in it?".

  • expert user: think something like
    "oops, they are alike (close in shape), but not perfectly equivalent figures",
    following with the question:

    • problem X: "How to show that they are not perfect equivalents?".

The clever geometry-expert thinks in terms of close in shape geometries.

The normal user thinks, mistakenly, in terms of exact congruence. So, the use of wrong hypothesis, produce ill Y questions.

The "XY problem" as a specialization of the "wrong hypothesis behaviour"

You want to solve the real question-X, and you think in terms of an Y-context, and try to use question-Y. Instead of asking about context X, you ask about context Y.
(as @Gnome noticed above, but using other words)

So, "XY Problem" is only another (more specialized) term to say "Use of wrong working hypothesis".

The Missing square puzzle problem is a good illustration. It illustrates a simple and universal problem/question/solution process, where "some illusion" causes complications.

There are a self-evident problem — the 1×1 hole in that arises on the second figure —, but the solution is evident only after we know (like an Egg of Columbus)... All people, experts and non-experts, agree that there is a problem.

enter image description here

  • normal user: thinks that
    "there are two equivalent figures, the 'total triangles' in a perfect 13×5 grid...",
    following with the question:

    • problem Y: "Why does the second equivalent triangle have a hole in it?".

  • expert user: think something like
    "oops, they are alike (close in shape), but not perfectly equivalent figures",
    following with the question:

    • problem X: "How to show that they are not perfect equivalents?".

The clever geometry-expert thinks in terms of close in shape geometries.

The normal user thinks, mistakenly, in terms of exact congruence. So, the use of wrong hypothesis, produce ill Y questions.

The "XY problem" as a specialization of the "wrong hypothesis behaviour"

You want to solve the real question-X, and you think in terms of an Y-context, and try to use question-Y. Instead of asking about context X, you ask about context Y.
(as @Gnome noticed above, but using other words)

So, "XY Problem" is only another (more specialized) term to say "Use of wrong working hypothesis". See examples at this question/answer.

Add @philipxy suggestion, to avoid the term "similar", with popular technical meaning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similarity_(geometry)
Source Link
Peter Krauss
Peter Krauss
  • 91
  • 3
  • 9

The Missing square puzzle problem is a good illustration. It illustrates a simple and universal problem/question/solution process, where "some illusion" causes complications.

There are a self-evident problem — the 1×1 hole in that arises on the second figure —, but the solution is evident only after we know (like an Egg of Columbus)... All people, experts and non-experts, agree that there is a problem.

enter image description here

  • normal user: thinks that "there
    "there are two equivalent figures, the 'total triangles' in a perfect 13×5 grid...", 
    following with the question:

  • problem Y: "Why does the second equivalent triangle have a hole in it?".

    • problem Y: "Why does the second equivalent triangle have a hole in it?".

  • expert user: think something like "oops
    "oops, they are alike (similarclose in shape), but not 'perfectly equivalent'perfectly equivalent figures", 
    following with the question:

  • problem X: "How to show that they are not perfect equivalents?".

    • problem X: "How to show that they are not perfect equivalents?".

The clever geometry-expert thinks in terms of "similarclose in shape geometries that aren't perfect equivalents".

The normal user thinks, mistakenly, in terms of exact congruence. So, the use of wrong hypothesis, produce ill Y questions.

The "XY problem" as a specialization of the "wrong hypothesis behaviour"

You want to solve the real question-X, and you think in terms of an Y-context, and try to use question-Y. Instead of asking about context X, you ask about context Y.
(as @Gnome noticed above, but using other words)

So, "XY Problem" is only another (more specialized) term to say "Use of wrong working hypothesis".

The Missing square puzzle problem is a good illustration. It illustrates a simple and universal problem/question/solution process, where "some illusion" causes complications.

There are a self-evident problem — the 1×1 hole in that arises on the second figure —, but the solution is evident only after we know (like an Egg of Columbus)... All people, experts and non-experts, agree that there is a problem.

enter image description here

  • normal user: thinks that "there are two equivalent figures, the 'total triangles' in a perfect 13×5 grid...", following with the question:

  • problem Y: "Why does the second equivalent triangle have a hole in it?".

  • expert user: think something like "oops, they are similar, but not 'perfectly equivalent' figures", following with the question:

  • problem X: "How to show that they are not perfect equivalents?".

The clever geometry-expert thinks in terms of "similar geometries that aren't perfect equivalents".

The normal user thinks, mistakenly, in terms of exact congruence. So, the use of wrong hypothesis, produce ill Y questions.

The "XY problem" as a specialization of the "wrong hypothesis behaviour"

You want to solve the real question-X, and you think in terms of an Y-context, and try to use question-Y. Instead of asking about context X, you ask about context Y.
(as @Gnome noticed above, but using other words)

So, "XY Problem" is only another (more specialized) term to say "Use of wrong working hypothesis".

The Missing square puzzle problem is a good illustration. It illustrates a simple and universal problem/question/solution process, where "some illusion" causes complications.

There are a self-evident problem — the 1×1 hole in that arises on the second figure —, but the solution is evident only after we know (like an Egg of Columbus)... All people, experts and non-experts, agree that there is a problem.

enter image description here

  • normal user: thinks that
    "there are two equivalent figures, the 'total triangles' in a perfect 13×5 grid...", 
    following with the question:

    • problem Y: "Why does the second equivalent triangle have a hole in it?".

  • expert user: think something like
    "oops, they are alike (close in shape), but not perfectly equivalent figures", 
    following with the question:

    • problem X: "How to show that they are not perfect equivalents?".

The clever geometry-expert thinks in terms of close in shape geometries.

The normal user thinks, mistakenly, in terms of exact congruence. So, the use of wrong hypothesis, produce ill Y questions.

The "XY problem" as a specialization of the "wrong hypothesis behaviour"

You want to solve the real question-X, and you think in terms of an Y-context, and try to use question-Y. Instead of asking about context X, you ask about context Y.
(as @Gnome noticed above, but using other words)

So, "XY Problem" is only another (more specialized) term to say "Use of wrong working hypothesis".

Minor grammar fix.
Source Link
NelsonGon
NelsonGon
  • 101
  • 5

The Missing square puzzle problem is a good illustration. It illustrates a simple and universal problem/question/solution process, where "some illusion" causes complications.

There are a self-evident problem — the 1×1 hole in that arises on the second figure —, but the solution is evident only after we know (like an Egg of Columbus)... All people, experts and non-experts, agree that there is a problem.

enter image description here

  • normal user: thinks that "there are two equivalent figures, the 'total triangles' in a perfect 13×5 grid...", following with the question:

  • problem Y: "Why does the second equivalent triangle have a hole in it?".

  • expert user: think something like "oops, they are similar, but not 'perfectly equivalent' figures", following with the question:

  • problem X: "How to show that they are not perfect equivalents?".

The clever geometry-expert thinks in terms of "similar geometries that aren't perfect equivalents".

The normal user thinks, mistakenly, in terms of exact congruence. So, the use of wrong hypothesis, produce ill Y questions.

The "XY problem" as a specialization of the "wrong hypothesis behaviour"

You want to solve the real question-X, and you think in terms of an Y-context, and try to use question-Y. Instead of asking about context X, you ask about context Y.
(as @Gnome noticed above, but using other words)

So, "XY Problem" is only another (more specialized) term to say "Use of wrong working hypothesis".

The Missing square puzzle problem is a good illustration. It illustrates a simple and universal problem/question/solution process, where "some illusion" causes complications.

There are a self-evident problem — the 1×1 hole in that arises on the second figure —, but the solution is evident only after we know (like an Egg of Columbus)... All people, experts and non-experts, agree that there is a problem.

enter image description here

  • normal user: thinks that "there are two equivalent figures, the 'total triangles' in a perfect 13×5 grid...", following with the question:

  • problem Y: "Why the second equivalent triangle have a hole in it?".

  • expert user: think something like "oops, they are similar, but not 'perfectly equivalent' figures", following with the question:

  • problem X: "How to show that they are not perfect equivalents?".

The clever geometry-expert thinks in terms of "similar geometries that aren't perfect equivalents".

The normal user thinks, mistakenly, in terms of exact congruence. So, the use of wrong hypothesis, produce ill Y questions.

The "XY problem" as a specialization of the "wrong hypothesis behaviour"

You want to solve the real question-X, and you think in terms of an Y-context, and try to use question-Y. Instead of asking about context X, you ask about context Y.
(as @Gnome noticed above, but using other words)

So, "XY Problem" is only another (more specialized) term to say "Use of wrong working hypothesis".

The Missing square puzzle problem is a good illustration. It illustrates a simple and universal problem/question/solution process, where "some illusion" causes complications.

There are a self-evident problem — the 1×1 hole in that arises on the second figure —, but the solution is evident only after we know (like an Egg of Columbus)... All people, experts and non-experts, agree that there is a problem.

enter image description here

  • normal user: thinks that "there are two equivalent figures, the 'total triangles' in a perfect 13×5 grid...", following with the question:

  • problem Y: "Why does the second equivalent triangle have a hole in it?".

  • expert user: think something like "oops, they are similar, but not 'perfectly equivalent' figures", following with the question:

  • problem X: "How to show that they are not perfect equivalents?".

The clever geometry-expert thinks in terms of "similar geometries that aren't perfect equivalents".

The normal user thinks, mistakenly, in terms of exact congruence. So, the use of wrong hypothesis, produce ill Y questions.

The "XY problem" as a specialization of the "wrong hypothesis behaviour"

You want to solve the real question-X, and you think in terms of an Y-context, and try to use question-Y. Instead of asking about context X, you ask about context Y.
(as @Gnome noticed above, but using other words)

So, "XY Problem" is only another (more specialized) term to say "Use of wrong working hypothesis".

replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1
english fixes
Source Link
typ1232
typ1232
  • 342
  • 2
  • 11
ops, english
Source Link
Peter Krauss
Peter Krauss
  • 91
  • 3
  • 9
cut to simplify (!) and get focus on the proposal of only re-interpretation
Source Link
Peter Krauss
Peter Krauss
  • 91
  • 3
  • 9
ops, english
Source Link
Peter Krauss
Peter Krauss
  • 91
  • 3
  • 9
Source Link
Peter Krauss
Peter Krauss
  • 91
  • 3
  • 9
Post Made Community Wiki by Peter Krauss