pouët.net

Sorry if my post sounded too harsh - I'm not mad, I promise. From my point of view (as theoretical physicist and 4k coder) math is only to a very limited extent about "knowing words you can then look up". Very much of it is rather "practice a lot until you make few enough mistakes and build up a proper intuition how to approach problems to be able to solve them". Much of it is "choosing or making the correct theoretical tool" (avoiding overly abstract or too specific tools, or tools that are unsuitable for the task, but not obviously). Also math has a very structured and dependency-heavy tree-like "topology": Looking up many words will be in vain because you then have to depth-first google 300 words if you don't have the ground work layed out properly. And usually there is a much more technical part of math ("proof" usually) that you're usually not interested in when wanting to apply some math to write gfx effects, that neither you (nor a LLM) will be able to distinguish from the actually relevant concepts (example: measure theory vs. simply solving integrals like in school).

Peaceful thread you may think, but no, civilized discussion is too hard.

IMHO the actual math is pretty much a quite "ancient" language for writing poetic proofs (poetic, as opposed to formal). So to know how to apply integration or derivation rules, solving equations etc... is really an engineering skill or applied math you may say. If you want to write (poetic) proofs only then you need deeper understanding of advanced stuff, say you don't need to go through unformization theorem to parametrize a sphere.
So yeah, mid-school level "math" should be enough.