I have a big problem when people describe mathematics as just "a language". The people who usually do this say this because they are not interested in the mathe

I have a big problem when people describe mathematics as just "a language". The people who usually do this say this because they are not interested in the mathematics itself, but in some other subject that happens to require mathematics. In this case, the actual subject of interest appears to be relativity, not mathematics. It seems to me like a disrespect to say that mathematics is a language, because it seems to suggest that mathematics on its own has no substance, nothing intrinsic to itself. To be sure, there is a mathematical language, a notation with much ambiguity that is typically ok when conveyed to other humans, because humans are great with ambiguity. This book is attempting to get rid of that ambiguity by rewriting it in notation that does not allow for ambiguity and present it to computers, who are still very bad at ambiguity. But this mathematical language is not mathematics, and there is real substance behind the language itself, just like poems can be translated into other natural languages or algorithms can be written in several programming languages. Calling mathematics a language confuses form with substance or declares that it's all form and no substance.