Decentralised planning or centralised planning?

Never learned that, I dont need to write papers or anything for my course, it's not a research education but a high level trade university.

Possibly

Decentralized planning is a meme. People who criticize centralized planning and shill for decentralized planning either have no clue about anything or they mean centralized/decentralized in a very particular way, that is referring by that to the presence or absence of a small elite doing all important decision-making. Data processing can be highly centralized without a small elite making the decisions. People who shill for central planning almost always just mean centralized processing of data.

Centralized data processing can be understood in at least three different ways: spatial, that is considering data from different regions; topical, that is the data shows all sorts of correlations (e. g. you don't have completely separated data separate sets for requests of toys and books, so the combined data shows not just the correlations within each topic, but that people interested in yoyos tend to be also interested in books about yoyo tricks, and so on); and temporal, that means data is updated in a synchronized fashion (this avoids loops).

Well, the standard visualization is to just use a relatively simple example where some trade-off between using two production processes can be visualized by a graph showing the output of each possible combination of the two. This can be followed up with a 3D graph for three processes, and finally a picture of an ordinary pleb computer and the number of production process combinations it could handle.

Fair enough but I was more or less thinking of explaining the true nature of the algorithm so it is intuitive. Explaining lines and planes, how they delimit the feasible area and how the fact that we use some sort of hyperplane proofs that the feasible polytope will always be convex, hence why we can use the simplex method and why it works at all.
But maybe I am going too far in wanting to explain how it all works. Showing a simple example without going into the reasons why it works in multiple (4 or more) dimensions might be beyond the scope of what we try to achieve.

"Centralized planning" is generally a synonym for "command economy".

Making these kinds of arguments is generally a synonym for being a retard who only wants to sperg about about muh statism at the mere sight of the word "planning".

Centralized cybernetic planning obviously. All information should be transparent (within the bounds of privacy), and each member of the population ought to come up with a plan to direct society based on it. Then they enforce this plan on one another. If any part of the economy doesn't act as it should, it will be investigated and quickly resolved. If people actively choose not to comply to the plan they might lose certain privileges.

Not everyone skeptical of centralization is an Austrian economist.

No but you have proven that you do not care about the actual subject at hand, but that you only want "decentralization" and say that "centralization is bad" because "stalin had a centralized economy so it must be exactly what stalin did".

Not everyone skeptical of centralization is a bourgeois liberal, either.

Again, you have proven to not care about the subject, only about labels, by saying
In response to a long post that explained how centralized planning is not a small-clique command economy.