Like it's not the names that scare me, it's the definition they represent. The fact that the name isn't descriptive doesn't seem like a big problem when the def

Like it's not the names that scare me, it's the definition they represent. The fact that the name isn't descriptive doesn't seem like a big problem when the definition has oodles of nuance. Granted I only have an undergrad in math so I can't quite speak to the experience of academics, but then the article is cherry picked too. All the examples given are of trivial things. Isoceles triangles and Fermat's last theorem. Both things you can explain in a sentence. Let's look at something with "mnemonic names": groups, rings and fields. Quickly by just looking at the name which one is the most generic and which most specific. Maths already involves a ludicrous amount of rote memorization, I'm not sure that using some guy's name is the hard problem. Internalizing all its nuance is.