This is such a great example of how people that know math(s) really struggle to explain things to people who don't, because they struggle to realise how much lingo they are using.<p>The first point explains something as basic as absolute and relative errors. Great.<p>1 page down (s)he's casually thrown in function notation with R representing the real numbers with no explanation. Anyone who isn't familiar with this notation is immediately intimidated. But I'd wager almost anyone who is familiar with it didn't need to read the page before it. But also, I think it's just unnecessary to be this specific in the first place, if you're trying to quickly explain concepts.<p>It's actually a huge problem in maths and even Wikipedia (I feel) is pretty guilty of this.<p>If you take a (relatively) key mathematical concept, such as the Taylor series, then the opening gambit is completely incomprehensible to anyone who isn't already knowledgeable in maths: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series</a><p>This, to me, seems in huge contrast with other scientific fields. Medicine wikipedia, for example, caters towards the "average reader" first, and doctors later. This is entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia. For example: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV_nodal_reentrant_tachycardia#:~:text=AV%2Dnodal%20reentrant%20tachycardia%20(AVNRT,most%20common%20regular%20supraventricular%20tachycardia" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AV_nodal_reentrant_tachycardia...</a>