If I was incorrect with thinking you were trying to be condescending by inexplicably equating LaTeX to "...maths", then I apologise for my assumption but, as noted in another comment, now I'm concerned that you actually believe the notation to be the math.

Even knowing that the '/' symbol represents division, which of course in the entire lexicon of mathematics is unlikely to be its only shorthand, fails to explain to the individual what division is or how one uses or performs it, and conversely one could teach the algorithm and use a different symbol.

> Can you give me an example of what you consider to be a "bad LaTeX explanation"?

Unsure how I could when it seems from our comment history that you originated this quoted text?

> I'm still not sure of what you mean by "notation only explanations". Do you have a problem with standard mathematical notation? Or with explanations that involve mathematics at all?

I have a problem with claiming to be a resource that explains a thing but explains it to people in such a way that you have to first have the thing actually explained to you through a secondary resource allowing you to then return to this resource and think "Yeah, this explains it now that I already had it explained to me elsewhere."

Maybe call it 'complexitysimulated' or 'complexityexpressedthroughapproximatedspecialcaseinteractiveanimatedcalculations' or even 'complexityexplainedtocomplexityresearchers'.

Seriously, ask yourself why my saying "I hope to see the end of LaTex only explanations." and "Show both if you can." triggers an initial snarky response from you and now this doubling down?

Mathematical notation changes.

Your equating symbols to '...maths' fails to uphold any rigor in its statement considering math needed to introduce such notation at some point.

> Where we would write 12 + 6n/n2 − 3, Diophantus has to resort to constructions like: "... a sixfold number increased by twelve, which is divided by the difference by which the square of the number exceeds three"

You seem to be taking for granted your previous knowledge and using it to defend a resource claiming to explain elements of that knowledge.

Do you want 'complexity explained' to anyone interested in having it explained to them? I do.

What does it look like to you for a person who is unaware of what complexity is but wants it explained to them going to this website seeking that explanation?

Can anyone leave having it explained? Does the person need to bring prerequisite knowledge, like deciphering latin runes, or perhaps they are expected to have read some textbook explaining complexity before this website can successfully convey an explanation of complexity to them?

Do you think you, or all people familiar with '...maths', have a gene that tells you what 'sin()' means or is it more likely that these esoteric symbols need also be explained when trying to explain any mathematics using them.

Do you think a 'trigonometryexplained' website could just list trig identities for sine like 'sinX=+|-(1/sqrt(1+cot*2X))' without an explanation for what the symbols 'cot' or 'sqrt' means or even a single right triangle anywhere?

Is 'Lf.(Lx.f(x x))(Lx.f(x x))' a better 'explanation' of the y-combinator by virtue of using mathematical notation, aka '...maths', or do alligators do a better job of explaining?

http://worrydream.com/AlligatorEggs/

Does anyone come away from the alligator explanation confronting people by saying, 'when you say "maths", do you mean ...alligators?'

There's a plethora of online debates, many had within these orange walls, lamenting the state of mathematical Wikipedia for the same or similar reasons.

These symbols are, contemporary!, placeholders for ideas.

If you want to explain an idea to someone that requires symbolic placeholders then those obfuscated ideas will need to be borne out as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diophantus#Mathematical_notati...