3 ms·

I think there's a good idea in there, but it's likely to confuse as is. It seems unhelpful at best to have the task to be to determine a function involving only

by John2022 1y ago

I think there's a good idea in there, but it's likely to confuse as is. It seems unhelpful at best to have the task to be to determine a function involving only x and y, but then you to have to click on t, and somehow that implicitly changes x and y values. They should, in my view, have had y as a function of t, and dropped x. Or another solution that doesn't create confusion. I also think it's weird that changing the equation changes the shape of the mountain, but the text is about changing the path of the sled.

empath75 1y ago
There are two separate equations here, one is the slope of the mountain, which is a function of x and a value of y and one is the path of the sled, which is a function of t, with a value of (x,y)
- John2022 1y ago
  But nowhere (at least in the first couple of levels) does it refer to the slope of the mountain - it says the task is to find "the path of the sled". But even ignoring that, nowhere does it define the relationship between t and x. What I assume they mean but don't say is that x=t. That's arbitrary. Also I assume you mean the path of the sled is (t, f(t)) where f is the function defining the slope. If the path of the sled had a value of (x,y) it would be stationary :)
  - dylan604 1y ago
    Seeing how the shape of the mountain IS the path of the sled, how does changing the shape of the mountain NOT change the path for you?
    - Nevermark 1y ago
      The path is flat by default, and mostly flat by initial expression. So it might not strike someone that the shape of the path is a mountain shape. Perhaps "the shape of a path down a mountain" would make everyone happy.
      - dylan604 1y ago
        the first example shows multiple curves in the path. Did not press past that as it was obvious to me what the game was going to be and I didn't have time to play games. If there is something after that starting with a flat plane, how did one get there and not see the curved example?
        John2022 1y ago
        I understand the confusion now. What they mean is that you're determining the shape of the mountain top using an equation, and then the skier is skiing along that mountain top according to gravity. But they don't say that. Instead they say the task is to set path of skier - i.e. how the skier goes down the mountain. But that's not correct - the skier obviously doesn't need to just follow the mountain top. Common sense/reality is the opposite - you rarely just follow a mountain top. If they'd just said the above, and I think not shown the value of t, it would have been a lot clearer, at least to me. If in later levels they show formula(s) using gravity, and perhaps show the skier on different planets, with different values of G, then I can see the value in showing the value of t. But as it is, I think it's confusing.
mlyle 1y ago
> They should, in my view, have had y as a function of t, and dropped x. Then you could have only had a flat floor that moved up and down. If you need shape that changes, you need it to be a function of both x and t. So e.g. (x-t)^2 / 5 is a parabola shaped "bowl" that moves right at 1 unit per second.
- John2022 1y ago
  Yeah sorry I wasn't clear. What I meant was that they are setting x=t but not saying that.
  - mlyle 1y ago
    The function sets the shape of the curve that the skier skis down. It is not the path of the skier vs time. (Gravity works, you can jump, etc). In later levels, you use t to make a floor that actually moves. The relationship between y and x is the coordinate plane behind the level (you can hold down right click to see it, IIRC).
    - John2022 1y ago
      I understand the confusion now. What they mean is that you're determining the shape of the mountain top using an equation, and then the skier is skiing along that mountain top according to gravity. But they don't say that. Instead they say the task is to set path of skier - i.e. how the skier goes down the mountain. But that's not correct - the skier obviously doesn't need to just follow the mountain top. Common sense/reality is the opposite - you rarely just follow a mountain top. If they'd just said the above, and I think not shown the value of t, it would have been a lot clearer, at least to me. If in later levels they show formula(s) using gravity, and perhaps show the skier on different planets, with different values of G, then I can see the value in showing the value of t. But as it is, I think it's confusing.

empath75 1y ago

There are two separate equations here, one is the slope of the mountain, which is a function of x and a value of y and one is the path of the sled, which is a function of t, with a value of (x,y)

John2022 1y ago
But nowhere (at least in the first couple of levels) does it refer to the slope of the mountain - it says the task is to find "the path of the sled". But even ignoring that, nowhere does it define the relationship between t and x. What I assume they mean but don't say is that x=t. That's arbitrary. Also I assume you mean the path of the sled is (t, f(t)) where f is the function defining the slope. If the path of the sled had a value of (x,y) it would be stationary :)
- dylan604 1y ago
  Seeing how the shape of the mountain IS the path of the sled, how does changing the shape of the mountain NOT change the path for you?
  - Nevermark 1y ago
    The path is flat by default, and mostly flat by initial expression. So it might not strike someone that the shape of the path is a mountain shape. Perhaps "the shape of a path down a mountain" would make everyone happy.
    - dylan604 1y ago
      the first example shows multiple curves in the path. Did not press past that as it was obvious to me what the game was going to be and I didn't have time to play games. If there is something after that starting with a flat plane, how did one get there and not see the curved example?
      - John2022 1y ago
        I understand the confusion now. What they mean is that you're determining the shape of the mountain top using an equation, and then the skier is skiing along that mountain top according to gravity. But they don't say that. Instead they say the task is to set path of skier - i.e. how the skier goes down the mountain. But that's not correct - the skier obviously doesn't need to just follow the mountain top. Common sense/reality is the opposite - you rarely just follow a mountain top. If they'd just said the above, and I think not shown the value of t, it would have been a lot clearer, at least to me. If in later levels they show formula(s) using gravity, and perhaps show the skier on different planets, with different values of G, then I can see the value in showing the value of t. But as it is, I think it's confusing.

mlyle 1y ago

> They should, in my view, have had y as a function of t, and dropped x. Then you could have only had a flat floor that moved up and down. If you need shape that changes, you need it to be a function of both x and t. So e.g. (x-t)^2 / 5 is a parabola shaped "bowl" that moves right at 1 unit per second.

John2022 1y ago
Yeah sorry I wasn't clear. What I meant was that they are setting x=t but not saying that.
- mlyle 1y ago
  The function sets the shape of the curve that the skier skis down. It is not the path of the skier vs time. (Gravity works, you can jump, etc). In later levels, you use t to make a floor that actually moves. The relationship between y and x is the coordinate plane behind the level (you can hold down right click to see it, IIRC).
  - John2022 1y ago
    I understand the confusion now. What they mean is that you're determining the shape of the mountain top using an equation, and then the skier is skiing along that mountain top according to gravity. But they don't say that. Instead they say the task is to set path of skier - i.e. how the skier goes down the mountain. But that's not correct - the skier obviously doesn't need to just follow the mountain top. Common sense/reality is the opposite - you rarely just follow a mountain top. If they'd just said the above, and I think not shown the value of t, it would have been a lot clearer, at least to me. If in later levels they show formula(s) using gravity, and perhaps show the skier on different planets, with different values of G, then I can see the value in showing the value of t. But as it is, I think it's confusing.