> It seems intuitively as a good idea at first to show proofs as images. But > after using incredible.pm for a while I begin to think it only makes > things harder. Proofs with more than six or seven blocks tend to turn in to > a tangled mess. For the problems in session 5, I feel like wanting to solve > them on paper first, using natural deduction. >
I thought about that, but now I tend to disagree. Formulas are less effective in using space, i.e. they are linear and variables are often duplicated which makes theorems less clear and more ambiguous (they need an additional translation layer and taking precedence rules into account). Also, from experience I don't have problems with 20 or so steps per se when they are linear but they become difficult to understand when they are nested. But for nested steps it's better to use custom blocks (or lemmas) anyway. In any case graphs are more natural for inexperienced students because they lack syntax rules and are more intuitive. I find incredible.pm visual graph approach more natural than explicit stack machine. It's better to have more choice than not. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Metamath" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/metamath/b8bdf158-b9a6-4f04-a80f-bd0c0aec03a5%40googlegroups.com.
