there's thinking mathematically and then there's being able to fluently read math articles on wikipedia as if they're easier than ernest hemingway. I can do the former and the latter I will insist until my grave is impossible for me.
replies(2):
(don't have any examples on-hand atm, this is just my general perception after years of occasionally looking things up there)
You'll see something like a mathematical proof with no explanation and it's end of article. The edit history will have explanations aggressively removed.
The equivalent would be the article for say, splay tree, to have no diagrams and just a block of code - feeling no obligation to explain what it is or if you looked up a chemical and it would just give you some chemical equation, some properties and feel no obligation to tell you its use, whether it's hazardous or where you might find it... Or imagine a European aristocrat and all that is allowed is their heraldry and genealogy. Explanations of what the person did or why they're important are forbidden because, it's just a reference after all.
Nope, these math people are a special kind of bird and I'm not one of them.
Even for reference purposes there are often better resources. E.g. proofwiki is usually better for looking up proofs because the proofs and definitions are interconnected.
I'm familiar with the mathematician response to this, I've heard it before and I fundamentally disagree with it. At work last week I gave someone a crash course in the simplex method and linear programming in about 30 minutes and it was a good-enough explanation that I came back in a few hours and the code was right.
This isn't impossible. There's just some wild apprehension that I'll never understand which insists everything is a grueling 1,000 hour journey to some kind of valhalla of enlightenment so you can bask in some aesthetic beauty of how perfect math is, as tears drip down from your cheeks, or something like that.
I mean come on now. Sometimes all you want is the cliff notes.
Would you expect to be able to read the "cliff notes" on French and then be able to read Camus in the original? That's what I mean by "body of knowledge" as opposed to individual facts.