Difference between revisions of "Explorable explanation"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Some claims I want to make/opinions I have: | Some claims I want to make/opinions I have: | ||
| − | * [[Finiteness assumption in explorable media|Explorable explanations have an assumption of finiteness]] | + | * [[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. |
* 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. | * 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. | * 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. | ||
Revision as of 00:25, 22 April 2020
Some claims I want to make/opinions I have:
- 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.
- 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.
