Post History

Can you summarize any explanation?

When explaining a piece of knowledge, sometimes the explanation is short and simple and other times it is long and complex.

Some people put the burden on the explainer, and demand that they make it shorter or more detailed, which implies the explainer *chooses* how long the explanation is to be.

On the other hand, explainers can object that the explanation cannot be made any simpler or any more in depth. Of course, it could be that the topic is complex and the explainer simply has limited knowledge, so claiming inability to make an explanation longer and more complex is a moot matter. My interest is in simplifying. It seems like if you are able to produce a complex explanation, there should be nothing stopping you from a producing a simpler one.

I am aware of concepts like Kolmogorov complexity, which obviously put a floor on the simplification of complex things. However, these refer to *lossless* simplification. I assume that a summary, by its nature, is lossy - the purpose of it is to provide a superficial description, and leave breadcrumbs which the audience can research if they are interested in learning more.

Obviously you can always produce a summary that loses more or less information. However, are there cases where the information loss is catastrophic? Is there ever a case where summarizing a topic into something with half the length will leave you with vastly less than half the information content? Or does the information content scale linearly with length, regardless of topic?