[jonpeda]

> If someone cannot grasp this, they lack either or both of the intellectual maturity

Yes, that's entirely the point! >> flummoxes people at the 9th grade level,

> There is no such as "an intuitive convention".

consistency is intuitive. inconsistency is unintuitive. That's not the same as a hypothetical complaint that a certain convention is unintuitive.

[claudius]

Even if we set out to build an entirely consistent set of notation for use in all of physics, maths and engineering today, we would face obvious problems, mostly that there are only about 100 different symbols (Latin + Greek + some extras) with maybe a handful of modifiers (primes, dots, tildes…and no, combining them is not good) and typefaces (difficult to replicate in handwriting).

So if we wanted to name every quantity and every concept possibly encountered by physics/maths/engineering today consistently, we already would have a hard time fitting everything in. Add to this that you also need a ‘working space’ of free, unencumbered symbols, a space of symbols free to use in the future[0] and the possibility that seemingly unrelated concepts today might well be linked in a few years time, and you will come to the conclusion that there is no way we could possibly build a consistent set of notation.

Really, be happy with what we have at the moment, choose a convention suitable to your current field of work[1] and everything will be fine.

[0] Some people started using Arab letters for new mathematical functions. Try googling for that.

[1] Or even invent the n-th one if you work at the edge of two existing fields or recognise that you can get stuff done more easily if you choose other symbols.

[marblar]

Relevant xkcd: http://xkcd.com/927/