In our scientific writing we often make statements that could be interpreted as ambiguous. Just as operator overloading (using the symbol "+" both for the addition of numbers and of matrices, for example) simplifies and actually clarifies writing, leaving some parts of our statements not spelled out in detail can sometimes improve writing. It presents ideas at a higher level, preventing the reader from being side-tracked by minor points.
However there is an underlying assumption, that the reader is at the level of maturity that will permit them to reconstruct the unsaid without effort. The writer wants to convey something very specific, and, if both reader and writer took the time to spell out the missing pieces in full detail, they would both come up with the same interpretation. I cannot think of any instance where it is desirable that the reader come up with several interpretations of what the writer really meant. There is no such freedom. The text and its meaning belong to the writer, and the reader is not at liberty to go at variance with what the writer intended to convey.
That is not true in literature. For example, "The Raven" poem by Poe. What is that bird really about? Why does it say "Nevermore" repeatedly? The answers can vary from reader to reader. Once the poem is released, it escapes from the poet, and other people are free to give it meanings that Poe never intended. They read the poem in the context of their own experience, and interpret it in radically different ways. The multivalence is not a fault but a richness. The stand-alone poem is incomplete, and it only achieves meaning when the reader's perspective is incorporated into it. The poem is ambiguous in a way that a mathematical text never is.