>>12618496>Why do mathematicians obscure their work with jargon?Give one example where this is true. It's clear and obvious what one means by vector bundle, homotopic, measurable, , analytic, Hausdorff, etc. Do you know how tedious it would be to write out the raw definitions for these everytime?
>Why do they keep inventing new words for concepts that have been around for a thousand years?Again, it's because when you work with these concepts a lot, giving it a shorter name is extremely useful.
>Why do they not care about making their work accessible?All works are meant to be accessible for the intended reader. Even consider you are not the intended audience?
>Why are they not able to express their work straigtforwardly?We express them literally as straightforward as you can get.
>I mean, I know why. Clearly they either don't understand it that well or they don't want it to be easy to understand for the purpose of job security.Seething
>>12618541>You're full of a bunch of narcissists. You're not even creative enough to name shit without your own name.It's called paying homage to our ancestors. We can do that, since math doesn't stop working like physics.
>If you actually understood what you were talking about, you'd have better names for it.We have complete understanding because we actually know what all the terms mean. Cope.
>>12618671>in the future, all mathematicians should use proof validation software and they MUST publish the source.Ah I get it now. You are too retarded to follow a fucking proof. Brain fried from retarded physics.
