Maybe "hopefully" isn't the right word.

My point is that not everyone who understands barber paradox (in plain english) has to understand formal logic, and not everyone who understands formal logic has to become a mathematician. However I still believe the existing of the plain english puzzle is a net positive for humanity's collective mathematical comprehension.

I think you want "optimistically".

Another way of considering that statement is diminishing returns on the utility of mathematicians.

Some is good, but more isn’t necessarily better.

And less isn't necessarily better either. But as we further mathematics, large cohorts are falling behind.

I welcome puzzles, but I also think we need to shed some of the exclusionary aspects of mathematics/compsci, the brunt of which are far too known: inaccesible formalisms, leetcode, competitive grants/hackathons, steep admission requirements, code bounties, interview puzzle rounds, etc.

Some necessary and organised in good faith I'm sure, but I hope we can move past the implicit assumption that 'maths/code isn't for everyone' and self-select based on that, as that doesn't further the cause.

> Why not hopefully more? Less? Is mathematics this inaccessible to the other 99.9%?

I think it meant "hopefully at least 0.1%." (I can imagine someone who feels that it's hopefully at most 0.1%, but probably that person wouldn't be kindly disposed towards efforts to fool people into being interested in complex mathematical topics, as your parent seems to be.)