We have plenty of math-less posts on LW. Sometimes an idea just requires a more formal discussion to be understood properly and many of these we would like to discuss on LW. On the margin, I think LW could benefit from a bit more math so that we can discuss some of these ideas more adequately.
I’d support a disclaimer early on about the prerequisites, so people without them don’t waste their time. There are some hyperlinks, but not enough (I guess you could search Wikipedia yourself).
People should know how much time they’re going to need to spend on a post in order to understand it.
Good idea- I’m adding links to game theory and Nash equilibria to the sequence summary (on the previous post). Can you suggest some prerequisites I didn’t think of?
Please stop making these little explanatory comments. They’re obnoxious, unhelpful, and their karma ratings should indicate to you that they are not well-liked.
I’m not sure about that. Being too math-heavy is not a good reason to downvote (except perhaps in very extreme cases), but if you are downvoting, isn’t leaving an explanation better than not?
Downvoted; too heavy on math.
We have plenty of math-less posts on LW. Sometimes an idea just requires a more formal discussion to be understood properly and many of these we would like to discuss on LW. On the margin, I think LW could benefit from a bit more math so that we can discuss some of these ideas more adequately.
I’d support a disclaimer early on about the prerequisites, so people without them don’t waste their time. There are some hyperlinks, but not enough (I guess you could search Wikipedia yourself).
People should know how much time they’re going to need to spend on a post in order to understand it.
Good idea- I’m adding links to game theory and Nash equilibria to the sequence summary (on the previous post). Can you suggest some prerequisites I didn’t think of?
Please stop making these little explanatory comments. They’re obnoxious, unhelpful, and their karma ratings should indicate to you that they are not well-liked.
But then one wouldn’t be able to provide negative reinforcement for his downvotes...?
Surely the cranks voting up/down only on math-heaviness are just noise.
But I do admit that yours is a clever observation. :)
I’m not sure about that. Being too math-heavy is not a good reason to downvote (except perhaps in very extreme cases), but if you are downvoting, isn’t leaving an explanation better than not?