Obviously neither one is more "human"; humans don't know the first thing about math until they're educated. This has everything to do with what's familiar and nothing to do with what's "natural" to the human mind.
If everyone is educated the same way, that's the human way of doing it, at least in the sense of human usability. It's irrelevant if we could theoretically do it another way. Language is learnt too, but that doesn't mean that (for English speakers) writing our programs with kanji keywords would be just as usable and readable as writing them with English ones.
To summarize your posts in this thread, if you have a representation (R) and you discover a new representation (R') where R' is provably better than R. R' however has a cost associated with converting to it, lets call it the impedance.
My reading of your posts is that you advocate ignoring any R' that has an impedance greater than zero. Surely it would be wiser to evaluate the switch to R' if the value of R' less the impedance of R' is positive?
No, it's neither fair nor accurate. Anyway, I see no point in continuing this conversation against a bunch of Lisp fans who will accept any old nonsense if it's pro-Lisp.
Everyone isn't educated the same way, sorry. That invalidates your entire argument, doesn't it?
"One day I asked him, 'Roger [Hui], do you do math in English or Cantonese?' He smiled at me and said, 'I do it in Cantonese because it's faster and it's completely regular.'" - "A Conversation with Arthur Whitney"
Obviously neither one is more "human"; humans don't know the first thing about math until they're educated. This has everything to do with what's familiar and nothing to do with what's "natural" to the human mind.