Possibly I'm an extreme outlier, because when I say that I try to keep up with the field a bit, I really do. I really do watch YouTube videos of presentations full of math significantly more complicated than that every so often.
But still, I would also stand by my wondering if there was something else going on here, because it still seems to be grad students in school at the time really should have followed that. When I was in grad school I am quite confident I knew several other students who would have understood that just fine, and I went to "just" Michigan State, not MIT or Berkeley.
> engineers
I think it's important to realize that these are two different things. One is a formal research science, the other deals with practical problem-solving and implementations.
Your typical software engineer likely has a CS degree, but CS researchers and software engineers are two separate populations. Sometimes the same person will do both, but usually not at the same time in their life or for the same organization.
edit: for example, you don't even need a computer to learn computer science fundamentals. A notebook or deck of playing cards will do fine.
TBH I personally don't always raise hands to such questions though.
What I'm wondering is whether or not there was some other factor going on, because I'm trained as a computer scientist and found nothing particularly objectionable about the formula, other than the f[] application notation. (And as a polyglot programmer, I've long since made my peace with that sort of notation mutation.) And I am by no means well-practiced in that sort of thing; I've been out of school for 14 years now, and only dabble on the side in this sort of thing now. The "forall y there exists an x such that" pattern in the middle is an extremely common recurring pattern, and what surrounds it on either side is also extremely simple.