It's not clear to me why the concept of log odds is needed to answer this problem. Or rather I feel that it isn't, and that a much simpler explanation could be given, and that the concept of log odds is shoehorned in.
Maybe this should just be a link to https://arbital.com/p/1td/, with a "hover to get the answer" ? It's not clear for me why it isn't so, if it means the reader is expected to always read the full linked explanations, or if he's expected to just look up the answer.
(I went ahead and added a note on that anyway)
One aspect I find a bit confusing in this explanation: the difference between the notations "3 / 2" and "3 : 2". In my mind, both correspond to "one and a half". But then suddenly I run into 3:2:6 and get pretty confused.
However, after investigating a bit, the usage of the colon ( : ) for division is common in France (I studied most of my Maths in France), but not in English-speaking countries, where / and ÷ are used instead (we would write "3 : 2 = 1,5"). So when you people use ":" you're not talking about division at all, but only ratios, so it makes sense.
I'm not sure this warrants special extra explanations unless other people get confused by the same thing (Apparently Germans use the colon for division too).
This page asks me if I learnt the concept of "Odds ratio" - but nowhere in the page does it actually explicitly talk about odds ratios, only about odds.
1I, for one, am fine with the current, simple comment system. It's close to what's on Stack Overflow (which also has two layers with extra constraints on replies to comments), which seems to work fine.
1I expected the "brief" and "summary" preview popups you get when hovering a link to be lenses of the page too... turns out they're a different concept.
... I don't understand this diagram. I understand the proof above fine, but the diagram just confuses me.