So this ever growing collection of proofs and names is an accretion (or in our moments of grander hubris a pyramid). What you are asking for is the tip of the pyramid (with its wonderful view) without the stones below, in effect what you are asking for is magic, a stone floating in the air with nothing to support it.
Isn't that how we all learn math? in fact, isn't that how we all learn anything really?
When you are in 2nd grade, you don't start by learning about Riemann hypothesis. You start at the tip of the pyramid and drill downwards into complexity.
I am not asking for something magical here. I just wish that more math was communicated in a simplified manner that would help bring in people from all walks of life into the world of science.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic -- Clarke
Amen. I have been saying that for years. But I think you misunderstood my original post.
I am all for 100% scientific rigidity and less bullshit in society. But what you seem to classify as "clear" is not-so-clear to others. It's actually about how condensed the information is in each question. In order to unpack those questions, you need years of experience within that field in order to get anywhere.
I bet you anything that each one of these questions could be posed in a different, yet still mathematical, manner that would make most non-mathy people (such as myself) at least understand the gist of what is being asked. But that is not something mathematicians are interested in. Which is what I was trying to say.