Something really bothers me about my encompassing weights approach.
When two topics are related to each other, like an advanced topic using some parts of other topic, it feels weird encoding encompassing edge weights as a fraction.
In the Math Academy Way:
…we label encompassings with numerical weights that represent what fraction of each simpler topic is practiced during the more advanced topic. You can loosely interpret each weight as representing the probability that a random problem from the advanced topic encompasses a random problem from the simpler topic.
It’s a rough probability that an advanced topic problem will encompass a simpler topic problem. What does that mean? That one problem would be more basic/simple than others, and fully encompass a simpler problem also picked at random?
I feel like I have to be way more specific encoding what tiny ideas were in fact encompassed. Either the simpler topic was fully and completely encompassed in the advanced topic, or only a specific idea of the simpler topic was, but in that case you would have to ask “what 20% of the simpler topic did you mean?” and if any number like 20% or 40% even makes sense.