[oliveshell]

The article indeed conveys no meaning at all to those not acquainted with the mathematical jargon it relies on.

Many scientific Wikipedia articles have improved in this regard over the last few years, but this one (along with many others in the field of mathematics) remains of little interest to non-mathematicians unready to synthesize and internalize the vast quantity of information in the articles of relevant linked terms.

I don’t see this changing any time soon without a lot of concerted effort.

(For the record, I’m someone who did not grok the significance of the article’s subject in the slightest.)

[bllguo]

OTOH the vast vast majority of people who will be reading this will be mathematicians who are familiar with the jargon. IMO it's perfectly fine for wikipedia to optimize for the primary audience, instead of optimizing for the rare curious person who has no relevant background.

[ianai]

There’s too much math to fit into one brain. It’s infeasible to expect every topic explained to a common denominator. Though, I definitely invite anyone interested to grok through all the math they can and cannot understand. Math, I hope, is more than just the academic practitioners.

I can attest to the enjoyment value in reading through math way beyond and outside my understanding. It’s amazingly beautiful, humbling, and can be surprisingly useful.

[thecopy]

During my master thesis, i went into the Wikipedia pages for mathematical theorems i mastered and i felt i was five years old.

The language used on the mathematics pages on Wikipedia almost makes me believe it is some sort of intentional gate-keeping scheme.