>I found this paper to be very wordy and littered with mathematics that was at times impenetrable. don't understand this comment. if someone asked you to read

>I found this paper to be very wordy and littered with mathematics that was at times impenetrable. don't understand this comment. if someone asked you to read a QFT paper would you claim it were "littered" with impenetrable mathematics? or vice versa: if a cond mat physicist read a geophysics paper would they be justified in claiming the same? you're reading a paper outside of your domain of expertise; expect to be challenged.