Other examples that highlight how understanding of mathematical research involves much more than just reading: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:5NM3XjxAWfUJ:... http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/13460/how-to-read-a-...
Experts don't take time to read notations. They take time to understand the full scope of consequences embedded in a line composed of such a condensed and readable notation, within the frame of an otherwise complex proof.
> Mathematical notation is not readable, no.
I beg to differ. You mention the recent possible proof of the ABC conjecture, and I happened to browse through various materials on the subject. While I am far from being able to understand the crux of the proof, I can perfectly read the various components of it. In fact the notation system is so readable it actually helps tremendously in grasping concepts previously unknown to me.
It's also as bad as natural language for ambiguity and informality.
I don't think either English text or mathematical notation is a magic wand for readable programming language; It's more about reducing accidental ambiguity and the amount of mental context needed for parsing 'natural' constructs in the language.
The same is true for programming languages. Sure, anybody can read Python. But it's fairly verbose and attempts to mirror English. On the other hand, Haskell is somewhat terse and attempts to mirror mathematical notation. I've found that, after about the same amount of time with either language (about a year of off-and-on use for both), Haskell becomes far easier to read than Python.
So just because something is easier immediately does not mean it is any more readable. It could, in fact, be less readable and merely more familiar!