Cassandra, there is not "my world", but there are "my definitions". The definitions can be read by everybody, regardless of whether they are not understood by everybody.
In maths, the purpose of a definition is to use or apply this definition. The purpose is not: to avoid its use or application.
Theory goes through stages:
1. The theory is created.
2. The theory is understood by others.
3. Optionally, an approximation of the theory is translated so that more people can understand at least the basic idea.
Maybe you confuse the stages 2 and 3. On the on hand, you want to understand the theory itself, e.g., when you try to find mistakes in it in order to prove how bad a researcher I am;) OTOH, you want an approximation of the theory, e.g., when you complain that I insist on my definitions being used and applied at least when my paper as such is being discussed.
I published the theory in particular for the purposes 1 to 3.
That usually 3 comes after 1 and 2 does not mean that 3 would be impossible.
Elsewhere, I gave hints how ordinary players can profit from the theory or an approximative understanding of its basic idea.
My other papers do not all fall into one kind. I have written research papers and have written other (more) application friendly papers.
My "pure" go theory papers are not marketing papers.
pwaldron, examples of typical go research papers:
http://www.dumbo.ai.kyutech.ac.jp/~teigo/GoResearch/http://typo3.cs.uni-paderborn.de/filead ... f13_cg.pdfhttp://lie.math.brocku.ca/twolf/papers/semeai.pdfRBerenguel, it seems we were confronted with different kinds of papers at university.
Mathematical notation would have hurted, e.g., my own research, because it could have proceded only much more slowly.
Concerning the research amount for my ko paper: did you notice that it took me 13.5 years?
Concerning your comment "has a very low quality preface and preliminaries. It lacks a table of contents. The typesetting is sub-par (no named definitions, no cross-reference of definitions and hypotheses, etc.)", I agree that these aspects could be improved greatly if I invested a couple of additional weeks. I lack the time to do so.
Concerning "lacks a clear structure", I disagree: the paper is devided into clear sections, as are the definitions.
Concerning "The phrasing in most places I checked is unclear, with long phrases." it depends on whether you mean the definitions or the commentary. The commentary I have not optimised for best English, because I lack time to do so. The definitions have a couple of long phrases or sentences, because this supports conveying the contents. If sentences were split, unnecessary ambiguity would be introduced about which sentence provides additional necessary conditions for which other sentences. Alternatively, the definition text could have been made much longer by using many lists; I have preferring to use lists for the central definitions, to emphasise them; if I had used lists everywhere, this emphasis would have been lost.
Concerning aspects of English style in that paper, I lack time to improve it. You need to a) not read, b) bear this / complain about this or c) wait one or two decades, until hopefully find time to publish everything in a book. Since I lack time to improve the English style in such papers quickly, my alternative would be not to publish such papers. I prefer publication with imperfect English style to no publication at all.
Concerning "The definitions and restrictions in the first pages lack immediate motivation", motivation is found a) in the application of the early stated terms and b) in the explanations on the restrictions. If, however, you want, per term, motivation - definition - application/commentary, you need to wait for (c).
I know that many papers are expected to be read by only a handful of other researchers. I do, however, think, that this situation can change. Not by motivating necessarily you to read, but by motivating at least a few more interested people to read.
Cassandra, your car example is no exception to the rule that all car examples are flawed;)
