I often try to get math topics by reading about them on Wikipedia. I've found that almost universally, they're completely incomprehensible, unless you already k

I often try to get math topics by reading about them on Wikipedia. I've found that almost universally, they're completely incomprehensible, unless you already know everything about the topic that's being discussed, and are thoroughly versed in adjacent topics. [1][2] We can compare that with articles on physics, which is pretty close to math, after all: they are almost always excellent and mostly understandable even to complete laymen (ie, me). [3][4] If Wikipedia's goal is indeed making all human knowledge freely accessible, then that does not just consist of putting up the words. It means making the content accessible, not just available. While Wikipedia succeeds magnificently in many areas, math is not one of them. ___ [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_product http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_product [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuple http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuple [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe