# On the Definitions of Sufficiency and Elegance in Systems Design

## mahmoud efatmaneshik, michael ryan

The sufficiency of the solu- tion and then its elegance depends very heavily on the context of the problem boundary—it makes no sense to discuss sufficiency or elegance without first defining that boundar

design and elegance is a universally recognized goal for system design

elegance and sufficiency are separate properties of a system

- sufficiency is binary (it is sufficient or not)
- elegance is the lest complex sufficient solution (question of relative complexity)

complexity is then a matter of size (of problem domain) and perception (perceived complexity)

OED: pleasantly ingenious and simple

**elegance has both quantitative/practical and qualitative/abstract/romantic aspects**

which one do i choose?

abstract:
- grace
- style
- pleasing
- crative

practical:
- simple
- neat
- parsimonious

assumption: **simple is beautiful**

how does one make something complex, simple? (open question by pierre)

the rest is an almost-mathematical demonstration of sufficiency as being the one which satisfies **only** each of the problems element within the probem domain

subjective elegance of a system reduces with time as the subject learns about the problem. so over time, as the problem is deemed more and more simple, it’s harder to find a notion of elegance in a solution

and then he gives three examples:
- cutting a straight line into paper
- shaving nose hair
- fractioned satellites system