I do appreciate the feedback. (And I should mention that there is a supplement to the thermodynamics article that this post is about which goes through some num

I do appreciate the feedback. (And I should mention that there is a supplement to the thermodynamics article that this post is about which goes through some numerical experiments; you can see it here: https://nicf.net/articles/toy-thermodynamic/ https://nicf.net/articles/toy-thermodynamic/.) I do think that this may just be a situation where the thing I made isn't the thing you wanted, which is fine, but I can say a little bit about why I made the decisions I made. The audience that I had in mind for these pieces is mostly people who've had some amount of training in pure math; it came about because I felt (and still feel) like a lot of the existing resources for this stuff aren't presented in a way that lines up well with the way that people with that training often like to absorb information. Speaking for myself, I don't think I would enjoy reading an article about the Feynman path integral that's full of tables and graphs with results of numerical experiments. My reaction to a piece like that would be "Okay, that's nice, but can you please just say what mathematical objects we're even talking about here first?" It sounds like you have the opposite set of expectations, which is totally fine, and that probably just means these aren't the articles for you, but there (I hope!) are also other people whose expectations are more in alignment with the presentation I went for. I don't think either of us is "wrong"; our preferences are just different.