6 ms·

> With the key difference being that math is an artificial and constructed language which can be improved. what does this actually mean? what do you think it a

> With the key difference being that math is an artificial and constructed language which can be improved. what does this actually mean? what do you think it actually means? conlangs like esperanto are indeed designed/constructed by some committee/body/BDFL/etc. as far as i am aware, there is no such body for mathematical notation/syntax/jargon. it is figuratively and literally a language with conventions, jargon, slang, etc. that evolves over time and varies by subgroup/community (try reading euler's papers and see how much you can parse even if you're notation-literate today). > Criticising it makes sense. Irrespective of whether it's a conlang or not, criticizing something you don't understand never makes sense. > The problem is that academia has a culture of making papers needlessly complicated. this is true and i wholly agree with you but that's structural and not individual. so criticizing these authors, that labor under these same policies/expectations, for the sins of the establishment/institution does not make sense. you want to effect (yes with the e) change along these aspects? go write emails to conference committees or journal committees or whatever. or write your own papers that buck the trend (and thereby put your own research career at risk). but don't blame someone that's on the receiving end.

Asraelite 3y ago
> what does this actually mean? You're right that they both developed over time, I was more referring to the fact that one is more open to change and less ingrained in people's minds because of its more artificial nature. If you tell people that the way they're speaking a language is bad and needs to be corrected, they take it as an insult to their culture and will likely refuse. If you say that math notation can be made simpler and more comprehensible, then it's a lot more likely that some authors will agree with you and use a revised notation in their papers, even if it means having to explain that notation to readers. Or even better, leaders in education will modify syllabi to teach the new notation. To your other two points: I am not trying to criticize these authors, nor am I criticizing their notation. I am just pointing out the underlying reason behind the lack of comprehensibility. I don't have a solution here.

Asraelite 3y ago

> what does this actually mean? You're right that they both developed over time, I was more referring to the fact that one is more open to change and less ingrained in people's minds because of its more artificial nature. If you tell people that the way they're speaking a language is bad and needs to be corrected, they take it as an insult to their culture and will likely refuse. If you say that math notation can be made simpler and more comprehensible, then it's a lot more likely that some authors will agree with you and use a revised notation in their papers, even if it means having to explain that notation to readers. Or even better, leaders in education will modify syllabi to teach the new notation. To your other two points: I am not trying to criticize these authors, nor am I criticizing their notation. I am just pointing out the underlying reason behind the lack of comprehensibility. I don't have a solution here.