I get a little bit dyslexic/dyscalculia-like, when I try to interpret the more complicated arrangements of numbers [and symbols], used to describe set-theory and calculus. So I've taken to writing psuedocode, and drowning my statements in unnecessary parentheses [to help me nullify the need to remember an "order of operations"]. I'm even working on a new personal standard math-markup-language, to help myself grasp an ever expanding range of topics. But that begs the question; assuming I find something that works for me and does not fail/contradict itself: "Will I universally be expected [by the academic community of mathematicians] to translate my work into the pre-existing "standard notation" for it to be taken seriously; or is the academic field willing to accept different standards of mathematical expression, so long as they are fully realized [syntactically-standardized notations]?
If a new way of describing the same maths/math crops up [alongside the tradional way of describing those maths]: does it have a fighting chance? Or is it something that is universally frowned upon and considered disreputable [in an academic setting]?