"There are only two kinds of modern math books: Those you cannot read beyond the first sentence, and those you cannot read beyond the first page" - C.N. Yang (Nobel laureate in Physics)

That's maybe because a lot of modern math writing prioritizes rigor over clarity. Simplicity in explanations is just as important as the equations themselves.

Yang's quip highlights a key issue - abstraction in mathematics has outpaced pedagogy. Al-Khwarizmi's 9th century texts were models of clarity, introducing algebra through practical examples. Modern math needs that balance of rigor and accessibility.

My father was a brilliant EE from Purdue, he used to get angry when we came home from school with a new "updated" Math book.

The quote as given is subtly inaccurate, which I find difficult to explain because the post includes a video with the correct quote. Here’s the diff between the given quote and the actual quote: –There are only two kinds of modern math books: +There are only two types of modern mathematics book: -Those you cannot read beyond the first sentence, +One you cannot read beyond the first page, -and those you cannot read beyond the first page +and one you cannot read beyond the first sentence.

The real problem is not dense or shallow papers. It's that science has become more about guarding turf than expanding knowledge. Too many gatekeepers, not enough explorers. We need more curiosity, not more credentials. The next breakthrough won't come from protecting a consensus. It'll come from someone who wasn't supposed to be asking those questions in the first place. #UnifiedSpacetime

who's "reading" math? the only meaningful way to interact with formulas is to test them which is more like a "rewrite" or a "copy"

@cindygallop Yang doesn’t sound like a fan of modern math.

Nature is much more simple.

Probably just a coincidence that this problem affects all math books.