The creator of math must be seen as logic and not inspiration or God.
When these three are confused there is no solution.

I wake from a frightening dream
Grateful for waking up

Make me a true team
Make me an empty cup

Sinful proclivities
Yes, I still got 'em

Still to do my best
My best from top to bottom

                  new day

I struggle with women
But I am very attracted to
And sometimes afraid of
Female beauty

I want to be a guardian
A protector
A teacher
To do my duty

i'm no one important
i'll die unknown
but at least once she said
What a cutie!

If I can make a logical pattern with the elements of a problem which is better than what I had before attempting it, then I've "solved" it.
At least for now.

Math is appropriating the qualities of form so as to make generalizations about their interactions.
Like saying W=wisdom, l=love, and s=speech, then I could say W(l,s)=Wl+Ws.
Here wisdom acts as a qualitative change of l and s together.
Or, W(l,s)=Wl*Ws.
In this way wisdom act as a multiplier, but it could get trickier if wisdom acted as both a multiplier and a qualitative change.
So I could ask how I could represent that.

The difference is that wisdom has no physical representative.
Whereas stating V, a smooth vector space, has elements (e1,...,en) automatically gives a representation.
Functions onto this space would be characterized both by its definition and representation, much like the term "running".
What seems difficult is adding more and more verbs together to form other verbs, where these verbs have a whole list of what is included.
Also, why would two different symbols, like walk and run, have similar qualities?
Or, why would two similar definitions, like escort and escrow, have different meanings?
Thus, although math is said to be a universal language, it still is a nuanced language, and the number of years and hours spent learning it is directly related to its familiarity.

Differential manifolds are like levels of a video game where the character levels up their weapon upon arriving on each new level.

Even math geniuses can't know what an equation means without telling what its variables stand for.

When reading math makes sense, it cannot be put into words truly.
But when writing proofs in symbols, it cannot take place of language either.
However, without combining symbology and language, I won't be able to comprehend.