This is a negative consequence of the pigeon-hole principal. There are more mathematical concepts to express than there are (uncomplicated) symbols. There has to be some trade off between clarity and simplicity.
In 'Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman', Richard Feynman talks about studying trigonometry.
"While I was doing all this trigonometry, I didn't like the symbols for sine, cosine, tangent, and so on. To me, "sin f" looked like s times i times n times f! So I invented another symbol, like a square root sign, that was a sigma with a long arm sticking out of it, and I put the f underneath. For the tangent it was a tau with the top of the tau extended, and for the cosine I made a kind of gamma, but it looked a little bit like the square root sign. Now the inverse sine was the same sigma, but left -to-right reflected so that it started with the horizontal line with the value underneath, and then the sigma. That was the inverse sine, NOT sink f--that was crazy! They had that in books! To me, sin_i meant i/sine, the reciprocal. So my symbols were better."
I thought my symbols were just as good, if not better, than the regular symbols--it doesn't make any difference what symbols you use--but I
discovered later that it does make a difference. Once when I was explaining something to another kid in high school, without thinking I started to
make these symbols, and he said, "What the hell are those?" I realized then that if I'm going to talk to anybody else, I'll have to use the standard
symbols, so I eventually gave up my own symbols.