Gene writes

 

<<

<<

[Here Gene quotes my expressed wish that an "introduction to QM" article in the Monthly had been written in standard math -- not physics -- notation.]

>>

 

But this contradicts your earlier request for using standard notation.

The standard notation for quantum mechanics is that which is used by

the physicists. Perhaps what is really inappropriate about this paper

is attempting to explain quantum mechanics within the very brief space

permitted. It would be a better allocation of resources to cite some

standard textbooks, and proceed to the main point of the article.

>>

 

You are so right.  But I meant math notation.  Regrets if that was not clear from the context.

 

> ...

<<

One of my main gripes about the Monthly is that sometimes the articles

are dumbed down. Some years ago there was a paper about one

dimensional manifolds. Great, I thought, maybe I'll learn something

about the long line. But no, the author acknowledged that there was

one more manifold called the long line, but it was outside the scope of

the the paper. Eventually I decided that the MAA and the Monthly were

outside my scope, and allowed my membership to lapse.

>>

 

Since the time I was in high school, at least, its aim used to be accessible to undergraduates.  For the last 15 or so years, however, it looks to me to be aimed at 2nd-year math grad students and up, or rather advanced undergrads.

The change was probably gradual.  I find it much more advanced than it used to be years ago.  (Though it probably still runs a few "dumbed down" articles just to attract more undergrads, these are not typical.)