> Now, there is some convenience in having scripturally short symbols when you do your math with paper and pencil, for example posing some additions in column. But that’s all there is to it, pencil convenience.
You say that like you can just say it, and it's so, but you've got no evidence all symbols are equal even if they are equal in some ways, and Iverson delivered such an utterly convincing argument to the contrary by showing example after example of the exact opposite. You should read it a few times:
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/1283920.1283935
> A concept is a single semantic idea whatever the length of the symbol used to refer to that concept.
No, symbols take up real space on the page, on the screen, and in our minds; there are only so many symbols you're going to be able to put in your mind in your career, or in your life, so if there's a way to say some symbols are better than others, then by knowing the better symbols you will among other things, be able to solve bigger problems faster and with fewer bugs. That may not be important to you, but it's important to me!
"+" is a really good symbol. That's why the tradition has been so hard to shake, and that "pencil convenience" has been with us for thousands of years, but "+" isn't that old! For a long time addition was performed with juxtaposition! Just a series of stroke marks like |||| but seriously 5+5 is better than ||||||||||| and nobody can convince me otherwise! I think though, if you aren't convinced by now, I'm not sure what else I can do.
