ME.25:1 - Problem frame

Use this pattern when a mathematical transformation suggests a different way of doing recurring work. Factoring a repeated operation may let several contributions share preparation. Changing a decision rule may avoid unnecessary work. Replacing an operation by a different construction may make a previously unavailable result obtainable.

Begin with the working difficulty, the proposed transformation and the consequence that matters. Recover what the mathematical objects describe in the work. Derive the changed construction, then turn its operations and conditions into a candidate way of working.

The result is a candidate with a stated practical change, its mathematical grounds and the conditions still needed in the work. A useful result can also be a changed description of the existing method, or a reason that the proposed transformation cannot supply the desired improvement. Such a conclusion can finish the present question.

This method designs through a mathematical model. ME.3 supplies the situated requirements, ME.6 and ME.6.MC compare arrangements, and ME.7 distinguishes a proposed way of working from a Method whose relations obtain. The mathematics is supplied by MATH or the relevant mathematical practice. The additional work here is to construct a practicable change from that mathematical result.

The reader needs an account of the work and enough mathematics to interpret the chosen transformation, or a collaborator who can explain its assumptions and consequence. Use mathematics that expresses the needed dependency; a small equation can be sufficient.

Use an already suitable method without deriving another. When the candidates are already constructed, compare them through ME.6. When only one execution’s dates or assignments change under an unchanged rule, the result belongs to planning that Work; it does not yet establish a changed reusable method.