|
Maybe you're not used to reading quantifiers. I also find them much easier, faster, and more accurate to read, because it's from practice. Sure you can take simple English statements, and write them with quantifiers, and claim the English is simpler. But going the other way, expressing complex items in English, is a non-starter. English is far too sloppy, whereas the quantifier version is mathematically precise. Try converting something professional, such as Godel's incompleteness proofs, into English. Without precise quantifiers you'd quickly get lost, make mistakes, and take forever to get anywhere. For example, look at page 17 of the proof [1], at AG(6)(a) (after the "Thus"), where there is a long statement in logic. Convert to English (near impossible, certainly not possible without something like parentheses) and tell me it's easier for a logician to read. It's not. As written it's concise and parseable without confusion for a logician. The simple English sentence case is a tiny part of what mathematicians do. [1] https://web.yonsei.ac.kr/bkim/goedel.pdf |
At the very least, you will struggle to persuade me that the use of \wedge is easier to understand than the English word "and" with line breaks.
Also you've picked a specific example where the objects of study are these long strings of symbols. Of course any paper worth its salt is going to use them - they're literally the things that the paper is there to examine. It's the metamathematical statements in this context, not the quotation of the formulas under study, that I want to replace with English.