> ...the content is merely linguistic, not mathematical. I disagree with the "merely" here. Half of mathematical practice seems to be finding the right way to

> ...the content is merely linguistic, not mathematical. I disagree with the "merely" here. Half of mathematical practice seems to be finding the right way to think about a thing. If the author were claiming this was a new grand theory, I'd be right there with you, but they seem to be claiming that it's just another way to look at things. I don't see any claims of importance. There's always room for new viewpoints that are content-wise equivalent to old viewpoints but different in how you work with, interpret, and think about them. > ...but end up just rehashing standard mathematics in opaque ways. I'd say it's rehashing standard mathematics in strange interesting ways, making it a very fitting curiosity for a site where things like a history of methods of communicating with submarines gets a ton of upvotes. It's a bit surprising to realist that it seems like we completely agree on what it is and what its contribution to existing standard material is, but for some reason I think it's interesting while you "wish it would stop."