> 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 ingr

> 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.