It’s certainly possible to use simple Venn Diagrams when explaining Bayes’ Theorem, and doing so actually broadens the appeal of your article because it makes it more accessible to visual learners.
Hmm, you’re right. And the audience I was thinking of was people who, like myself, tend to visualise these things (though the diagrams in my head are maddeningly vague when I try to capture them).
My deeper pedagogical problem, though, is that equations—any equations, even “2+2=4” is pushing it—generate ugh fields. This is more than a little problematic when explaining mathematical concepts.
I recommend using diagrams as much as possible, like this.
I predict the intended audience’s heads would explode.
It’s certainly possible to use simple Venn Diagrams when explaining Bayes’ Theorem, and doing so actually broadens the appeal of your article because it makes it more accessible to visual learners.
That’s stunningly beautiful, and much better than what I had found just Googling a little.
Hmm, you’re right. And the audience I was thinking of was people who, like myself, tend to visualise these things (though the diagrams in my head are maddeningly vague when I try to capture them).
My deeper pedagogical problem, though, is that equations—any equations, even “2+2=4” is pushing it—generate ugh fields. This is more than a little problematic when explaining mathematical concepts.