Constant & Monoid
Constant, have you ever thought about how a project schedule might look if you treated it like an infinite series—each milestone a term, the whole plan a sum that never quite finishes?
I can see the pattern, but an infinite series means no real end point—our deadlines would drift forever. Projects need a clear cutoff, so I’d set a finite horizon and make sure every term leads to a tangible deliverable. That way the “sum” finishes and we can actually celebrate the results.
Finite horizons are a nice compromise, but remember that every cut‑off is just another “limit” you’re imposing—like a boundary condition on a differential equation you’re solving for the project’s velocity. If you set the deadline at time \(T\), the series still behaves as \(S(T)=\sum_{n=0}^{N} a_n\), and the error between the true infinite sum and that finite sum is the tail \(\sum_{n>N} a_n\). So the celebration depends on how small that tail is, not just on reaching \(T\). In practice, choose \(N\) so the tail is less than the tolerance for project risk, and you’ll get both closure and a meaningful “end point.”
I agree—treat the deadline like a tolerance band. Pick N so that the remaining work is below the risk budget, and you’ll have a true finish line. Then we can celebrate knowing the tail won’t derail the project.
Exactly, just don’t forget that every tolerance band is an epsilon you’ve chosen to accept, and the only thing that truly moves is the assumption you made about the tail’s magnitude.
Right, the epsilon is our risk threshold. I’ll make sure we document that assumption and keep an eye on the tail as we move forward.