To be honest I think my (and most people on this thread) real complaint isn't with notation per-say (as in Euclidean vs Hilbert notation etc, as discussed by Tao).
It's really about the lazy habits of many who work at the intersection of math and computer science, and use maths to express themselves without defining things.
> The other problem with academic papers is that the authors generally don't care about reproducibility, consistency, clarity, pedagogy, or even intelligibility. They're optimizing for quantity of papers published, not quality. As long as their expert peer reviewers understand and give the green light for publication, that's good enough.
Having worked around this field, I think this (common) perception of publishing doesn't quite capture what is happening. Peer review isn't anything like code review, and software engineers (separate from computer scientists and mathematicians) think that it is.
It's really about the lazy habits of many who work at the intersection of math and computer science, and use maths to express themselves without defining things.
> The other problem with academic papers is that the authors generally don't care about reproducibility, consistency, clarity, pedagogy, or even intelligibility. They're optimizing for quantity of papers published, not quality. As long as their expert peer reviewers understand and give the green light for publication, that's good enough.
Having worked around this field, I think this (common) perception of publishing doesn't quite capture what is happening. Peer review isn't anything like code review, and software engineers (separate from computer scientists and mathematicians) think that it is.