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?

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.

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.