"...a note should capture just one thing, and if possible, all of that thing.". This just doesn't seem feasible to me for an scientific workflow. I realize his scope is math, where I can picture it being a little easier, but still nearly impossible. How often can you break down a note into something self-contained? I'm probably just taking it too literally.
Maybe this says more about my relatively disorganized thinking patterns. For me, notes are typically thoughts about the current thing I'm processing and it's relation to something else, often in an imprecise way, to be explored further. Maybe the point is that wouldn't qualify yet as a note, and only when you refine the thought into something more concrete with direct reference to precisely the relevant notes on the related thing(s). But where do I start?! How do I make the first atomic note? It seems I wouldn't be able to reference a book. Maybe I could reference a section of a book, hoping it's self-contained. But even then, is have to resolve the references needed for that section into atomic notes themselves. When do you ever have time to actually think?
I hope enjoyed this unedited stream of consciousness that I should probably just delete.
No I had the same reaction. This kind of rigid "semantic network" kind of approach just can't work in the absolute case. And the author seems quite "absolute" about it.
It comes down to - what's the point of this? If it's to prove theorems to a computer then it's obviously the wrong approach. If it's to explain concepts to humans then it's _also_ the wrong approach. It's not true in any useful way that one can learn something by just starting at a random "node" and then "tree shaking" some big "knowledge graph" and just learning the specific edges that remain.
That said, no hate for this kind of tool! Interlinked knowledge is obviously great and useful, it's the emphasis on designing a rigid ontology that makes me raise an eyebrow.