Wot, no √(radical)?
Why does Mathican not use the radical (eg √3) notation for roots?
The answer to this touches the very heart of Mathican.
Mathican's first principle is clarity - that means that obfuscation must be avoided, if at all possible.
Let's unpack that a little: where is the obfuscation (hidden information) contained in the radical symbol?
Don't get me wrong, the radical symbol is a beautifully crafted mark by pencil on paper, and once we, as humans, have attributed meaning to it, it jumps off the page and becomes familiar and instantly recognisable. In that sense it's a lovely shape, but unfortunately for it - we, as Mathicans, need more than nice shape, we need meaning (and connectivity within the Mathican ecosystem), so we ask ourselves what is the meaning?
The base radical symbol communicates "what number multiplied by itself (power 2) makes the number contained within the radical?"... The number 2 is screaming - "I'm involved is this" and so Mathican (as the most meaningful mathematical language on the planet) should strive to show it when expressing a 2nd root.
Basically the numbers are front and centre in Mathican, so we need to see them every time they have a role. I can't over emphasize this - Mathican is about the numbers, a square root MUST show the number 2 somewhere.
That's why Mathican doesn't use the beautiful radical symbol:
Semel: √3
M=>
Mathican: think better