# Teaching Complex Math Is Bogus

Upper level Mathematics as a core subject is one of the most perplexing parts of the American curriculum. The level niche, obscure, and abstract thought found in classes like "Algebra 2" and "Trigonometry" is taught as if it were as fundamental as language, the basics of history, and the entire concept of logic itself. The concepts learned past the basics associations with solving for X, measuring simple shapes, and basic plotting serve very little purpose to the average person in their personal and professional lives. The amount of time sunk into these subjects also is absurd, with most of the upper level classes serving no additive purpose in themselves. The amount of time used on these subjects could go to any other form of good knowledge such as philosophy or the students own interests.

## But the point of math isn't the concepts themselves, it's to get you to solve problems!

$\frac{{x}^{2}-4522x\mathrm{x+1}}{8{x}^{2}}= 25$, it is a syntactic disaster in both solving and solution. One where everything is shoved together in such an ugly way as to invite you to lose a step in the mess. Going through the process of solving an equation like this is hell because of this error-prone fragility. Mathematical problems (assuming they are problems and don't have some heuristically, unoriginal algorithm to perfectly solve it) ought to spacious and inviting to look at so you don't lose yourself in the condensed mess of modifications upon modifications. Philosophers and Programmers1 both figured this problem out by writing their logical statements in sane ways. Programmers use words as symbols for meaning (instead of mere numbers), break problems down into individual statements and steps as they're being solved so they're easy to analyze and understand, and break problems down from macro-level monstrosities into smaller problems that are easier to work with. Some of these concepts may be integrated into how we teach math currently, however, that simply isn't happening. Philosophers, at least philosophers who write, have a tendency towards enumerating concepts in a very verbose way, allowing much space in the content and ideas themselves so they may be properly processed with meaningful statements rather than obtuse symbols. One can have a math equation described linguistically to them in how it functions and it will make complete sense, however, the second that you put those symbols on a paper it all falls apart. That failing is due to the sheer failure that mathematical syntax is. Some may say this is a "stylistic critique" and "a matter of opinion" that should be discarded. There is some truth to this, yes I would like the logical notations I use to not be an obstacle in the way of doing good logic. I rather not be stuck with absurd symbols strewn about in needlessly complex ways when just a bit of space and fluff would make everyone's life easier. There is a certain level of "yes, this is my opinion, and yes it is the correct one" that comes with this as the nature of how math is presented effects its ability to be comprehended. Nothing in math is too complex until you're forced to memorize insane symbols and formulas that can't be associated with anything real.