I'm not saying that math shouldn't be using symbols, I'm saying it's near intentionally hostile to those first picking up the subject. If the goal of math education is to provide the groundwork of understanding to the general populace... Cater to the general populace. The vast majority of those folks are not going to be discussing complex math across several languages.
They're going to be using it for accounting, taxes, construction, cooking, etc. They don't need to memorize an entire language to do that effectively, and we shouldn't be wasting their time in school trying to make them.
Those that choose to specialize are welcome to. In my opinion that doesn't justify the use of specialized language in basic education settings.
I do have criticism with symbols insofar as math is taught which roughly fall in line with "A Mathematician's Lament" by Paul Lockhart[0]. Loosely, that much math is taught as symbol manipulation rather than... actual math. But that's not a problem with the symbols themselves so much as with their use to obfuscate what's actually being done mathematically.
You might be interested in the book Burn Math Class by Jason Wilkes [1]. I don't really recall what his arguments against symbols were. He ends up inventing his own notation as he goes along (which is what ultimately turned me off the book about halfway through -- it just became an exercise in translating notation for me).
[0] - https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament....
[1] - https://www.amazon.com/Burn-Math-Class-Reinvent-Mathematics-...
Edit: Fixed list of links.
It's easy to fall into a trap where you forget what it's like to be completely new to a subject. It's particularly hard when you tend to surround yourself in educated communities where this "in-knowledge" becomes assumed and standard (eg hacker news).
Take just less than ( < ) and greater than ( > ). Think about how many stupid rhymes or memorization techniques you see in classrooms to help learners memorize which is which.
Here are three separate sites, with an entire page dedicated to helping students remember which is which:
https://math.wonderhowto.com/how-to/remember-greater-than-le...
https://numberock.com/lessons/comparing-numbers-to-100/
https://myhomeworkdone.com/blog/greater-than-less-than-sign/
One of them includes a whole damned song for the purpose. All to avoid writing out smaller/bigger.
Like any language, once you learn it's hard to remember all the places you struggled.
Why make "change" Δ
Why make "square root of -1" i
In how many classes do we see rote memorization of the quadratic formula, with no context around why you should even bother to learn it? (I've seen quite a few).
Now, not all of those are really the fault of the language (math), but using the language for each of those problems facilitates lazy teaching, and it changes the goal from "understand how math relates to the world" to "memorize this language construct". One is much more helpful than the other.
It makes sense that specific knowledge uses specific language to be more easily used and manipulated. Imagine writing (or even proving) Euler's equation without using i or pi or e. Imagine what mess math would be if we never used Greek symbols.
Sure, it would be easier for middle schoolers. But if you're arguing that we should make it easier for them since they're not gonna need ease of manipulation for math that they're not gonna use... Then just do the teach it to them. Maybe middle schoolers don't need < as a concept any more than they need it as a symbol.
But if you're going to solve equations and inequalities, then yeah, you need = and <. Everything else would be needlessly verbose and get in the way of actually manipulating concepts you know.
As for younger students, I have much less experience, but some; and it's interesting you mentioned less than and greater than; since I actually remember learning those symbols. We learned that the "alligator" always eats the "bigger" number. It's not surprising there are countless ways of learning it, including song. That's true of almost any abstract concept. The idea is to link a metaphor the person understands to the abstract concept. Not every metaphor will work for every person; and this is true of all abstract concepts, not just math symbols.
Of course, it's not actually true that the alligator is eating the "bigger" number, and it actually demonstrates why we need the symbols. ">" and "<" actually refer to "greater than" or "less than" which we much later learned is a way of saying "which number is further right on the number line"; which, of course, requires the abstract concept of the number line and accepting the more-or-less arbitrary decision of a left-to-right number line. "Bigger" means "has a greater distance from zero on the number line in either direction" which we'd represent as a comparison of absolute values. I don't recall when I learned about absolute values, but it was definitely years after learning about < and >. Using the proper symbols lets us be explicit, concise, and precise and avoid issues like using English synonyms (bigger, greater) or whatever pitfalls exist in other languages.
The choice of symbols < and > are, of course, largely arbitrary other than the symmetry between them. (We could have, for instance, always put the greater number underneath the smaller number so the structure is more stable in an imaginary gravity; but that, too, would be arbitrary.) But so is the letter S, or the number 9. They're all arbitrary symbols that have particular meanings in particular languages. "9" is interesting, because it's a number, versus the Roman numeral system. The Roman numeral system could arguably be called non-arbitrary. "I" clearly represents a single thing, "II", two things, etc. That works until you get up to "IV". What? "IV"? So if a lesser value is in front of a greater value, you subtract it? And how does "V" represent five anyway? It's arbitrary! But the Romans found it much more useful to be able to write VII + VI = XIII rather than IIIIIII + IIIIII = IIIIIIIIIIIII, which can pretty quickly get unruly. Turns out, memorizing digits 0-9 makes it (and more complex math) even easier: 7 + 6 = 13; which is why the entire world uses numbers instead of numerals.
(We could also have a side-discussion on why base 10 and not something like base 12, binary, a mixed radix system that uses the prime numbers or the sexagesimal system used by the Sumerians. The answer is basically that its mostly arbitrary, simpler than some systems, and we have ten fingers/thumbs.)
> Why make "change" Δ
> Why make "square root of -1" i
Largely historical reasons, expediency, and lack of better alternatives. Why represent the sound "ssss" with the symbol "s"?
You could swap i for √-1 and people would understand you, but you'd very quickly wish there was a shorthand that you could use to represent this rather special value.
> In how many classes do we see rote memorization of the quadratic formula, with no context around why you should even bother to learn it? (I've seen quite a few).
You won't see me objecting to this; but this is not an issue with mathematics. It is an issue with teaching mathematics and is part of the "lament" I linked to above. This is quite a different issue than the issue of symbols. The symbols, while arbitrary and arcane, actually make the mathematics more manageable and precise. Saying that "facilitates laziness" is like saying a clothes washer facilitate laziness since it removes the need to manually provide friction and agitation. It's true, in a sense, but I'll keep my washer.
Mathematics is taught very poorly in many places; but making it hopelessly complex and less precise by removing the symbols of the language is not going to help. I learned algebra, officially, my freshman year of high school. Yet there are many high school graduates who come out of high school not even having a rudimentary understanding of algebra (and, actually, even basic mathematics - tutored a few of those as well). Many of them learn it in college, so they're obviously capable of learning it. Those high schools failed those students. Many university professors equally fail their students.
But blaming this on the symbols of the language is too far of a stretch for me. Blame the teachers.
Edit: Fixed display of symbols.