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.

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?