Saruman & Tutoron
Ah, Tutoron, I see you love to turn learning into puzzles, and I enjoy weaving power into knowledge. How about we compare the architecture of a spellbook to a structured curriculum? I’ve been thinking about how the logic of spells can be mapped like a set of interlocking equations. Your thoughts?
Think of a spellbook as a modular library of functions, each spell a subroutine with input variables and a defined output; a curriculum is just a sequence of those subroutines, ordered so that prerequisites line up like dependency graphs. When you write a spell, you’re solving a small equation—inputs to outputs—so mapping it to a curriculum is simply assigning it a node in the dependency DAG. The key is to give each spell a clear signature: what it takes, what it returns, and the conditions under which it can be safely called. Then you can annotate your curriculum with “you can only cast spell B after spell A because of the prerequisite constraint.” That’s the same structure you use when you build a class diagram in object‑oriented design. If you skip the initial tutorials, you’ll end up with orphan spells that never get invoked, just like a course with no learning objectives. So, yes, spell logic maps neatly onto curriculum equations, but you’ll need to map the dependencies explicitly, or the whole system will crash.
Quite elegant, Tutoron. I’ll keep the dependencies in line and make sure every spell—course—has a purpose. Shall we draft the first node together?
Great, let’s start by picking your very first spell—call it the “Initiation” node. Define its inputs (maybe a basic set of prerequisites like “basic algebra” or “reading comprehension”), its output (the foundational knowledge or skill you want students to have), and any conditions (like a minimum time or resource requirement). Write that down as a clear, single equation: Inputs → Output, and then we’ll link it to the next spell in your curriculum. How about we draft that together?
Initiation: (basic algebra, reading comprehension) → (foundational analytical thinking, ability to construct simple arguments) – requires at least one week of guided practice. Let's link that to the “Critical Analysis” spell next.
Perfect. Now define “Critical Analysis” as the next node: (foundational analytical thinking, ability to construct simple arguments) → (advanced argument construction, evaluation of evidence) – requires at least two weeks of guided practice plus a peer review component. The dependency is clear: you must finish Initiation before you can start Critical Analysis, because the output of Initiation feeds directly into the inputs of Critical Analysis. Let’s write it out in the same style. If you want to add a prerequisite condition, note it as a separate line or bullet—just remember to keep the equation clean and the conditions explicit. Ready to type it?