> For example, using greek instead of latin letters is completely unnecessary. Just to point out completely meaningless overhead.
Are you saying the whole field of mathematics (and physics) is wrong, and we're doing something "meaningless"?
> Using in-group context-sensitive symbols is by definition exclusive. Using descriptive well thought out names is inclusive.
Not when the group is open to anyone who wants to join. Math is probably the most "open source" field out there. Barring the very cutting edge front of research, everything can be learned from free sources or ones that can be borrowed for free from libraries, or had through very very cheap second hand material.
That there is a high barrier to entry when it comes to effort isn't some malicious gatekeeping design. It's just because some things are hard.
> Math as a language seems very needlessly compressed. Imagine a world where programmers invented a new symbol for every function and you would have to look up what they mean, but when you look up what they mean, you would have to look up 10 other symbols.
You clearly have never done math! The way it works requires intimate familiarity with the definitions of the symbols. Once you actually manage to internalize that (it can be a lot of work), remembering what the symbols stand for comes for free.
> Not everybody wants to be a mathematician. Some people just want to get work done and read through a bunch of research papers.
"Not everyone wants to be a surgeon, some people just wanna read medical research papers."
"Not everyone wants to be an astrophysicist, some people just wanna read astrophysics papers."
Do you not see how ridiculous this is? Nobody is gatekeeping for the sake of gatekeeping. You're conflating gatekeeping with something just being hard, and the practitioners of the hard thing not wanting to change the way we work to accommodate non-practitioners (to our own detriment!)