When I post threads, my phrasing expresses my mental model of the theoretical setting. For example, “posit that the probability of search space regions being subsequently optimal is non-uniform over the weight vector hyperspace of signal allocations”
-
My take — if you can express the same idea using simpler language, you always should. Keep simplifying until you would lose important detail by going further.
I understand what you mean by “the weight vector hyperspace of signal allocations” but “possible signal weights” says the same thing and is more people will get it.
-
-
Thanks for all of the inputs guys! Have watched Feynman clips but never really paid attention to the delivery, maybe its time I pay attention. The votes in + comments appear to suggest I should be simplifying it, and I agree to the good extent.
-
I just thought that the phrasing revealed important details about how I am thinking about the problem, which led me to consider the algorithms/techniques employed dissecting it. But seems like it is antithetical to the communication if the modelling terminology is not shared.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.