Reading math shall become as easy as reading spoken language.
To question comprehension is only natural until higher degrees of practice are obtained.
That's why I have dictionaries and thesauruses for spoken tongue, and why I have textbooks and the Internet for maths.

I said something about the neighborhood with the houses in disrepair.
That neighborhood with the smaller houses down by the factories and what is left of them.
The remark leaping off my tongue.
And as I stood there by someone half as young, I found myself unforgiven in my own eyes for being so cruel.
A proclaimed humanitarian, me, finds still hypocrisy in my soul for all to see.

Math notations are complexified simply to add more words to the math language.

Math does not enjoy English grammar, like paragraphs and complete sentences.

Math is the most complex musical instrument.
(Fumble)

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

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.

I have faith that God exists, but it borders on opinion.
It is either a secondary subjective opinion from say a Prophet or believer, or it is a first-hand subjective feeling of the presence of God which is like faith (as Kant defined opinion and faith).
I would say that God is not objective knowledge, though objectivity can be applied to It.

Then by what is meant by soul is subjectivity.
All gods are imperfect.
To make perfection a god is to separate it from life.
Therefore, God is as a zero orbit to which perfections are a decreasing in number (to the number brain).
For to give God an outer boundary would be to deny the universe, and to give God a lower boundary would proclaim zero degrees Kelvin.
Therefore, God is a limit, but for which all my soul's life or lives can never reach.
Prophets merely remind me that science involves different universes and that my subjectivity will never come to an end.
Just as energy can never be destroyed or created.
The Eastern Avatars are here to remind me that my subjectivity has had no beginning inasmuch that I can only progress from rereading history.

The crux of the argument is that once coherence is reached, it is met with more chaos.
Thus, the book of atheism is neverending just as the concept of a perfect god will never be attained or eliminated.

But what of truth?
Shall it not always remain both objective and subjective?
(Alchemists always believe in a baseless bridge.)

Atheism is the highest form of divine reason.

Reason is "the messenger of the realm of the body" which "fostereth the growth of all things".
So just as it says in the Gospel, that any speech good or bad of Christ is a blessing.
So to is any denial or doubt of God.
Tis but the messenger of reason only adding water to the Tree of Life.

Sometimes the clarity of a geometry is only appreciated by learning symbology which skates around such form.

Just prove everything with the chain rule or by making it equal to zero.
Sure it seems to work?!
What ignorance will I find myself in next month?

Solutions in differential topology simply must include one or two definitions which are building blocks to the given solution.
In other words, they don't have to reinvent the wheel of mathematics.
Note to self: I was doing it "right" all along.

In fact, not answering a math question exactly like pedagogy is just using common sense.
It seems like such an easy statement from induction, but so profound from deduction.

The self-math brain leaves me with only a space in my head, even without a tongue.
Ready to reflect only "numbers" back at myself.
It is rather humiliating actually not to have a narrative in my brain besides "math", "math", and again "math".

The idea is to learn math without losing ingenuity, curiosity, questions, and doubt.

Will I ever want to build or make something really detailed, or thereby solve something detailed?
Or, do I simply want to float away on fundamentals and never make anything?
Simply knowing the parts and never creating structure?
Because that structure always has to be unlike the structure with which  I associate my soul - the human temple.
Thus I discard them.
I see not benefit from the extra makings of the human mind.
I am as a cave man.
It would be much more beneficial if my soul associated with a body that was dependent on the mind rather than independent from it.
As if I had no soul with God, no peace with God, no spirit with God.
No peace, soul, or spirit with nature either, but only peace in human invention.

The multiplication of complexity in math can only occur if there are simple agreements made of previous complexity.
So it is not so much a "web" but a house of cards.

The difficulty of visualization comes from 3-ness which gives rise, as Lao Tzu said, to everything-ness.

More depth of understanding of math could come from breadth of sources.

Problem solving is about mental checklists:
1. Getting the "groceries";
2. Not getting munchies.

In divine revelation, two explanations go together if they are on the same subject.
If not, they usually are counters of each other in my heart, unifying only in wisdom.
Or, they can never morph their qualities into different ones.
Same for linear algebra.

In Plato's pedagogy of music, philosophy, then physics, math progresses from simple sound differences, to logic, to matter and space, because these mirror denser aspects of reflection requiring greater precision.

Like reading among other things, problem solving starts from a child, so not until every small problem is solved on the way to the big one, will there be a real answer.
That's why some children keep asking "why?"

The child thinks the simplest, and therefore is the object of the simplest questions.
It also gets the most heat from those sure of themselves.
The child is the source of the deepest learning and is therefore the Source of enlightenment.

All the ways of math are so hard to memorize, its study is more about the (not) mere study than the completion of pedagogy.
That is the difference between the genius and the degree.
Study, reflect, wrestle, struggle.
That is the very definition of genius, not an A on every course.
Moreover, although it would seem that one could complete the pedagogy, it is never complete unless the whole is memorized and one is capable of using any part of it at the drop of a hat.
I don't even know if I've met someone like this, although some professors on YouTube seem to exemplify this.

I have to stop thinking about math symbology as a part of a hierarchy, but rather an ad hoc system where everyone must be familiar with everyone else.

Math seems too abstract to put to any practical use.
Yet linear algebra is how the world of computers works, they say.
It must be a love affair with my spacial and numbers brain.
The ***** is imagination
And the ****** is common sense.
I'm awful at creating new ideas.
It is the way all those symbols make me feel stupid.
How am I even supposed to know if I get the problems right without a teacher?
Someone I can go to for help.
I don't mean things like Google search, stackexchange, or freemathhelp.
I mean someone I can rely on to always see me through a problem.
In a way it's as if my math was stuck in history, and I have to come up with all the answers for the last 100 years.
Like, "oh boy", too bad for civilization.
Maybe my one hope right now is that I come up with a new way to find the answer.
See, math requires hope.
Because love gets embittered.
Love gets tested.
Hope but the size of a mustard seed that makes me crack the book.

Even if math isn't making much sense, I still must find a path of sense through it.
Trudge, trudge.
Trudging means lifting my feet out of the mud every time I take a step.
The mud can get thick, taking more time between studies to approach with a fresh perspective.

Math, from addition to tangent bundles, is more like every principle is of the same level of complexity.
It is only adding to others that makes them confusing.

I want to say "good bye Alyssa",
Not just "see ya".
I want to tell you that I love you,
And always miss ya.
You pay attention to the news,
You study and reflect.
I meet the daughter of my dreams, and her beautiful husband.

Words.
That name seems to have more meaning than how I perceive things.

While they spent a couple years in college learning calculus, I was emotionally imbalanced and so behaviorally challenged.
When I was on meds and learning music, they were learning differential equations, linear algebra, and real analysis.
When I changed majors to philosophy of religion, they were reading hundreds of math papers from journals in grad school.
When I was getting a master's in criminal justice, taking my first statistics course, they were working on their dissertation.
When I was getting an electronics degree, they were getting published and doing research at universities.

After that I started studying physics, then math.
I struggle still to finish basic Calc 2&3 problems, and find it hard to get help with linear algebra.
All I know is that my trajectory is anything but common.
And the way I cover material would not be taught in most schools and universities.
It is more like the Montessori schools: I have an innate path to psychological development, and I act freely, supposedly creating my optimal way.

If I'm answering math problems in language, it means I haven't developed my symbolic number and spacial brain enough.

(Ultimately, at least for tonight) math is about how well I can logically uses elements together.
A crow can use a tool to get another thing to use for something else.
I imagine those who have accomplished the full pedagogy of math are the most capable of humans in using elements for "work".

...is like accounting.
Is more abstracting of the brain than calculus.
What's missing from it are the visualizations of what is being mentioned.
Like working with a space in the mind that can only make one or two changes at a time - giving logic but not seeing the big picture.
Unless the big picture is really only those one or two changes in the symbology and equalities.
But these only tell relations of 1-2 changes connecting and spreading like a web.

Multilinearinear algebra is like the guy with the three cups and the ball.
I have to pay attention to where the ball goes except I have to base it on logic not perception.

Daughter's presence flows.
All between love and sorrow.
Mind lived so simple.

Will she be caught in the tide?
Dear, ponder your reflection.

The fact that mathematics does not engage the language brain, but instead the spacial and number connections, means that an invention will inherently be spacial first and from this proven in numbers.

A differential equation really tells me that reality can be examined by as many factors with as many changes over as many dimensions as imaginable.
And that orthogonality, tangency, surface area, and volume are basic orienting points, along with rates of change, and that I can transfer this data into a set that is much like a map.
However, it tells me only of concept and not the world, or only basic geometry of the world.
It tells me a lot about space and the symbols and numbers that represent such concepts.
Yet language tells me of my mind, and this math only points out that any change, volume, space, or objects in a dream can be seen with numbers and symbols - that spaces can be exact.
Which may say something about the future, but it can never tell me of the afterlife.
And that spirit/soul even in my materialistic theory means very little when confronted with a new universe.
If I go to another universe, universe B, from this universe A, then even with the transposing of *** and evil into companionship and innocence, in my understanding, these two changes would make the rest of the universe differ greatly.
Thus, the thought of the afterlife will always empty my mind of this universe, leaving me with no real full knowledge of life as I have yet to even use my senses in the next one.
I then always return humble while the atheist considers this universe to be eternal already, without prediction to experience anything greater than its synchronicities.
I have to give them a hand as I imagine this universe overfills them and are forced to deny the spirit rising beyond our cosmos, but rather affirm the spirit that is the totality of this one.
It sets no stage for memories, unfinished karmas, or meeting with the peoples of history.
Therefore, it places a great significance on today, a great significance on love that exists now, and a great significance on the works our forefathers left us.
I would say that this is superior for creating a sense of progress, a sentimentality for others, and a need to experience an openness with all this universe.
Above all else to check off everything on my bucket list.

Truth is a limit that is approached from any direction.
The only 3D limit would be a mirrored limit where every direction I would turn would be the mirrored limit.
This can only be found in belief, for belief always tends to the belief unless another belief is mirrored.
Therefore, the diversity of belief is more about keeping a limit than keeping the expansive idea (belief) that sets the limit.

I'm always riding on knowledge or wondering why I really need it, why I should acquire it.
I repent for questioning why I need it.
Then I rebel in questioning why I need it.
Learning a lot of math without doing problems is like receiving a lot of instructions before trying to carry them all out.
In this sense inventing new math is the same condition as creating a company.
But the question remains: what service can I provide that current math cannot provide?
In my search, it borders on believing a formula can actually solve something without observing it in reality.
This would create a break between the real world and the world of the mind - the mind taking precidence.
Math here would become a novelty much like so many services today.
The mind without the universe is a novelty.
It would see the parts of the universe that were not seen as novel, now become novel themselves.
It would have to entice people to use this novelty, either in thought, word, or practice.
Therefore inventing math is just like salesmanship.
What can I sell the (parts of) universe off to you as?
Life revolves around water, food, clothing, shelter, and some type of computer.
But the universe centers on matter, light, and space.
Chemistry and quantum physics tells me of matter.
Electrodynamics tells me of light.
General relativity and the positive Grassmannian tells me of space.
To out sell these five monopolies I would have to come up with something great.
It is due to mathematicians' and scientists' observations that these monopolies are so powerful.
So much has been observed that it's hard to observe anything apart from them, or to even put them out of my mind.
Let's say I had gone through all the pedagogy, would I just become more satisfied with what already is, just as I've abandoned inventions of electronics after getting the degree and three years of self-study?
Now formally believing that electronics is too complicated to entertain a "new electrodynamics".
"New electrodynamics" becoming a watchword for the novice.
Wouldn't "new physics" or "new math" also seem similar after all is said and done?
But inventions usually come about by people using or doing something and figuring out a better way to do them.
Not by thinking about something until there is a better way to think about something.
Electronics became devoid of hope for change because what I already knew of it became so central to the world and yet still so awesome.
When my rank depends on a system, their is little impetus to change it.
Therefore, my dependence on innovation seems to depend on holding no rank in math and physics.
As one songwriter said, "If you have to or try to write a song, it will be crap, but if a song comes to you, it could be really good."
The same applies to "inventions" in STEM, despite what years of hard work has proven, it is always the truly inspired ones that make the new vision.
I feel my burden is lifted.

It seems mathematics is a progression toward relative and free models.

I get the whole line of reasoning more than every small instance of reasoning in my book, but that's why there are problems to work on.

I'm not to the point where I can write a textbook.

Delineating a series of concepts builds and builds and builds. It is not like a story that has a peak and tail off. Instead, it always builds.

Simply the idea of linear independent vectors forming a basis means that any two objects can create its own universe.

It seems learning is realizing the particulars of what I already know.
For once I got a breadth of what the universe consists of, learning about it got a glassy quality.
What is "the particulars"?
What differentiates them from the general concept?
The particulars are forgotten in short term memory, but while understanding them, they give a sense of truth as if the concepts themselves were a lie.
Rather, the concepts were for children and the particulars for adults.
Yes, who will become an adult in mathematics?
"I don't want to grow up," my essence affirms.
For I know that once I grow up, I can no longer act as a child.
"I want to grow up," my reason delineates.
For a child cannot truly help understand its unknown areas.
My child reasons: "but I can imagine a way to do it!"
What would a child be if not hopeful?

I read: it's not just about having the facet of knowledge but when to use them.
Thus, children reason in a world that hasn't gone down the rabbit hole.
Adults reason already in wonderland.
I must view the wisdom of adults as sheer madness, while the knowledge of the child as mere anger, instead of the other way around.
Maybe I don't want to lose my reckless quality of knowledge - somehow I can cheat the system!
Probably the rebel never dies.
Maybe that's what I hope the most.
I shouldn't see my knowledge being able to undercut wisdom, nor wisdom devoid of mystery.

Why do I want you?
That ***** look
Of a bed of many lovers?
What sets you apart from a young ****** untouched?
Because I've grown to love all your ways.
Those high full hips,
That shimmering face.
That Marine mentality though formulated as a city chick.
What makes your "can't have me" feel, as you stare into your phone, so much better than a ****** opt to hearken to hear me out?
What have you stolen from me, I ask?
The "I'm sorries" and "I hate that songs"?
The "what the *****", the talk of ***** and water?
You have shaped yourself as one that has friends, that goes out, that parties, the opinionated person still with humility and grace.
I have none of these.
Yet what makes you different than the philosophizing woman, or the pure untouched one?
Or the one who talks of the news and has found reflection?
Do your ways undress me and intice my primal instinct?
Why does your thorn look like a flower?
Without your beauty, you I would not consider.
Why has she imprisoned me by walls and bars?
How has a look and charm benumbed my intelligence?
I can only say that my idea of love doesn't flow into my eyes, and my idea of desire only flows there.
Why are these two different worlds?
To mix the two would make me jealously mad.
The dichotomy makes me fake.

Is mystery dependent on me thinking of mystery?
It is a safe bet.
For when what is central is knowledge, then I can only become aware of mystery if upon something new or unknown.
Thus, mystery is not knowledge, but the lack of it.
Mystery is ignorance.
Thus, my meditation is rather reflection on ignorance,
As if I'm trying to better describe ignorance, or find a way out of ignorance with only the experiential.
I think of mostly consciousness and the universe here, in terms of my and humanity's ignorance of them.
Not only am I limited by my own understanding but also the understanding of others, however much they are even more intelligent than me.
I see others working on problems that have proven to not solve the mystery, the mystery being ignorance.
The only thing that could solve it is omniscience.
Then it follows that what I'm really trying to solve is omniscience.
"Infinite cognition" as the Buddha put it.
Even if a person could have omniscience, it would be colored by how they can make sense of reality.
Knowledge would take the form of what is most familiar.
Thus, when wondering about a question as to what is pi, they may say about 3.14.
The answer conditioned on how people and the omniscient one would have the capacity to hear.
Maybe this seems more like intuition.
But omniscience would denote the person as a speaker, yet only allowable to speak as what was conducive for everyone's best.
This is how Baha'is look at Manifestations of God: only allowed to share a certain amount at a time.
Just as the Son said "I have many things to share with you, but you cannot hear them now".
Still their capacity would be limited to what they themselves were interested in.
For one who is marginalized and oppressed or even thronged by multitudes, often has no willingness to delve deeply into subject matter, it causing some to stray from a correct path.
Since fractal systems work strongest in more diverse settings, it would seem that the very thing that makes it strong also makes its capacity to hear weak.
Omniscience therefore, if given to only a few, has a limited range of effect.
But even this limited range would change the entire system.
As Baha'u'llah calls His followers "the leaven" and the Son calls His followers "the salt".
"Many are called but few are chosen" seems derogatory in a world where "ye are all the leaves of one tree".

World consciousness almost arose to love tonight, but the lover ensared it in his anger once again.
If I close my ears to them, will it go away?
If they close my ears to me, will I go away?
Strength in the diversity of parts.
Strength really meaning pain.
E Pluribus Unum.

In theory reductionsim,
I would say that what is central to contemplation is mystery.

It seems like I'm a genius when I'm searching and finding answers so that I can figure out problems.
Also, when I'm asking questions it feels this way.
But when I'm pondering The Mystery I always feel inadequate.
When I'm trying to skim my mind for a metaphor for an unknown part of the universe, it is like my imagination has to solve for both X and Y.

Getting help with an answer can often remove any need to think.
Except the need to think about how I could remember how to solve it the next time.
Often I've unknowingly believed that there is a disjunction between common sense and reasoning because I've believed that my common sense was no help.
In reality it was just a lack of communication between common sense and reason.
Learning helps the brain communicate within itself.
It is not merely learning more, but the ability not just to see connections, but communicate them.