Explorable explanation - Revision history

Issa at 19:00, 3 July 2022

2022-07-03T19:00:06Z

Issa at 00:42, 17 July 2021

2021-07-17T00:42:21Z

Issa: /* See also */

2021-03-29T17:47:18Z

‎See also

Issa at 21:58, 2 March 2021

2021-03-02T21:58:54Z

Issa: /* See also */

2021-02-27T19:21:02Z

‎See also

Issa at 19:02, 27 February 2021

2021-02-27T19:02:48Z

Issa at 18:56, 27 February 2021

2021-02-27T18:56:50Z

Issa at 01:29, 23 April 2020

2020-04-23T01:29:15Z

Issa at 04:45, 22 April 2020

2020-04-22T04:45:32Z

Issa at 00:58, 22 April 2020

2020-04-22T00:58:53Z

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 * Explorable explanations as doing the legwork of the kind of boring/tedious intellectual work that mathematicians have to do manually -- for example, setting up the proof, doing the low-level computations to make sure one has done a particular computation correctly, etc. I'm especially excited about using these tools was ways to practice choosing high-level proof tactics.
 * Few explorable explanations build up complicated concepts from simpler ones using a progression of puzzles. I can only think of video games that do this. I think this lack of "serial depth" makes explorable explanations seem gimmicky/not central to understanding a subject.
 ==See also==

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:42, 17 July 2021
Line 16:		Line 16:

	* [[wikipedia:Explorable explanation]]		* [[wikipedia:Explorable explanation]]
		+
		+	==What links here==
		+
		+	{{Special:WhatLinksHere/{{FULLPAGENAME}} \| hideredirects=1}}

	[[Category:Learning]]		[[Category:Learning]]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 * [[Video games comparison to math]]
 * [[Probability and statistics as fields with an exploratory medium]]
 ==External links==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Some claims I want to make/opinions I have:
-* [[Finiteness assumption in explorable media|Explorable explanations have an assumption of finiteness]]. But in math, you most often deal with ''arbitrary'' objects of a class, infinities of various sorts, impossible situations (such as within a proof by contradiction), and other non-finite things. How the heck do you reliably import and talk about these various infinities/impossibilities within the explorable explanations framework?
+* [[Finiteness assumption in explorable media|Explorable explanations have an assumption of finiteness]]. But in math, you most often deal with ''arbitrary'' objects of a class, infinities of various sorts, [[Representing impossibilities|impossible situations]] (such as within a proof by contradiction), and other non-finite things. How the heck do you reliably import and talk about these various infinities/impossibilities within the explorable explanations framework?
 * Existing explorable explanations are created by searching for things that are most conveniently represented in an explorable format, rather than searching for the most important things to explain and then trying very hard to represent it in an explorable format. This means that explorable explanations often feel gimmicky or unimportant. [[The Witness]] is beautiful and poignant, but at the end of the day, you're just drawing squiggly lines on panels to solve puzzles with artificial(=of no importance to anything whatsoever) rules.
 * Explorable explanations are often non-verbal? This is an interesting property, but it makes it tricky to use for ''inherently verbal'' subjects like mathematical logic.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:21, 27 February 2021
Line 10:		Line 10:

	* [[Video games comparison to math]]		* [[Video games comparison to math]]
		+	* [[Probability and statistics as fields with an exploratory medium]]

	==External links==		==External links==

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:02, 27 February 2021
Line 14:		Line 14:

	* [[wikipedia:Explorable explanation]]		* [[wikipedia:Explorable explanation]]
		+
		+	[[Category:Learning]]