It's always a challenge to know what level to target. I think it's helpful for many people (myself included) to ground the discussion in very concrete, tangible terms that they can easily imagine before getting into abstract definitions. And if you're not one of those people, it's still not so bad to read a few gratuitous sentences with examples, especially since those examples are extensively referenced later in the article. My real focus here was to make things as simple and easy to understand as possible, while still getting into all the nitty gritty details of how to actually compute the thing and understand something about why it works. I find you can usually get "easy and shallow" content or you can get "difficulty and deep" content, but not many technical articles go for "easy but deep."

Maybe a few subsection titles with "Introduction"/"use case"/"let's dive in the math" will help to guide the simple guy to read the simple part, and the expert guy to reach directly the complex part of your message.

It's totally possible to target both the amateur and expert audience in a single article, but it need an appropriate structure to achieve this :)

For exemple:

(1) Abstract: set the direction of your article. What we want, what we use (Pearson), what I like to use (Hoeffding's D), eventually some outcome

(2) Introduction: your first three paragraph can go in there, with two subsection (exemple, and state of the art with Pearson use).

(3) Pearson details

(4) Hoeffding(s D details

(5) implementation of Hoeffding's D

(6) Conclusion/comparaison

Personally, without a clear introduction stating where we start, where we go, and what is the journey programm, I tend to not read (which is not good for me and for you :) )