>Why do this rather then define an abstract, human-evaluatable, programming language?
The syntax of math is bad for a number of reasons. Making it some big 3D thing isn't going to make that syntax more reasonable.
Math is a language that could learn a lot from programming languages, even if you don't plan on running it on a computer and dealing with all that hassle.
>Making strange squigles on a page doesn't help. Making strange greek symbols on the page doesn't help. >Ditch the alphabet soup (and yes, even the 5th centry Greek alphabet soupe)
Math is optimized for paper. This makes it a lot less accessible these days. All these custom glyphs are a damn weird idea. Naming your variables "a" wouldn't be accepted in any other languages.
>Abstract common ideas into "functions".
Once you've abandoned the idea of single-letter variable names, it becomes easier to abstract common mathematical ideas into functions and build a great big library of those functions.
> Use logically derived variable names (even if they're 5-10 characters).
Naming your variables "a" wouldn't be accepted in any other languages, and from the outside looks like a pretty silly idea.
>Phi shouldn't mean 30 things depending on the field you're in.
Choose more descriptive variable names.
Things like using variable names that make sense rather then the current single-letter + subscript limit. Using easily typable characters and combining those to create complex operations. Substituting language for obtuse symbols. Simplification of expression syntax.
I don't know best how to put it in your terms, nor what I'm missing, because these are things I take for granted being a programmer.
What do you mean with all that? Maybe I'm being obtuse but you're just saying random words and terms from programming. How on earth is that applicable to physics? I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to propose.