Syntactic complexity of natural language is basically solved by LLMs (ie. given an unambiguous natural language statement, it can be translated to any formal la

Syntactic complexity of natural language is basically solved by LLMs (ie. given an unambiguous natural language statement, it can be translated to any formal language syntax with 99% success), so just wrapping mathematical operators around natural language concepts basically achieves nothing. The problem is semantic ambiguity, ie. which sense of a noun/verb (concept/operator/function/relation) is meant. The concepts inside the syntax in the paper are still ambiguous. Also underspecification in general - having a formal syntax does nothing to address this. Both formal and natural language specifications can and commonly are incomplete. Don't see anything in this proposal to address that. (and any solution probably applies to natural language syntax as well) The only problem with (formal) natural language syntax these days is that it's a bit too verbose and harder to read (ironically) compared to more math-y/codey ones.