5 ms·
The idea of teaching using extensional definitions (an expanding list of examples) is fine, but I came across a weird case of it at a bicycle repair workshop a
by theoh 8y ago
The idea of teaching using extensional definitions (an expanding list of examples) is fine, but I came across a weird case of it at a bicycle repair workshop a few years ago.
It's a bizarre example, but it went like this.
Audience: what's a fixed gear bike?
Repair guy: it's uh, it's like a unicycle, for example...
In that scenario an intensional definition is really the way to go. I don't understand how that bicycle repair guys mind worked at all.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- kqr 8y agoHaving ridden both fixies and unicycles, the example makes total sense. "It's like a pennyfarthing" works too. The issue is that examples are meant to leverage the recipients intuition. Very few people have intuition for unicycles and pennyfarthings, so the examples fall flat. That said, "It's like a children's unicycle" would probably count as a valid example too, and refers to something people may have intuition for. But it may also stress the wrong parts of the example. We want to convey the sense of direct drive, not circus prop.
- lloydde 8y ago> That said, "It's like a children's unicycle" Tricycle? Or I’m very interested in a culture where children’s unicycles are a common thing.
- kqr 8y agoYes, tricycle, of course. If anyone figures out where this children's unicycle culture is I may want to move there.
- theoh 8y agoI don't think the problem is with intuition, though it's probably true that people don't realize that the absence of a freewheel is crucial to the function of a unicycle. The problem is that a single example which differs on multiple dimensions from the "standard" bike (e.g. number of wheels, stability characteristics, steering, holonomic vs nonholonomic maneuverability) is highly ambiguous.