>"He thinks mathematics is discovered!"

>>7845887
In my experience it is usually someone from a religious background trying to replace man god with math god

Discussing whether math "exists" or not involves so many ambiguous concepts that it doesn't drive us anywhere because there is literally nothing to know about semantics (they're defined by us), so OP is as much a faggot as the people he's criticizing.

>>7845887
>he isn't a pythagorean
>he isn't a radical platonist

>>7845887
Dumb anime poster.

Babby here, mathematics isn't discovered?

I thought we just observed what works and wrote "rules" or equations that simplify what is possible.

>>7845902

I'm a full fedora (literal atheist) in private life, and also some flavor of (mathematical) Platonist. In this contrary case, you could just as easily dispense with it by supposing that the atheist wants something, anything to be transcendent in life, so (the argument would go) a few autists settle on something like mathematical Platonism.

But that's not what's actually going on. What is actually going on, is that the content of math persists (as manifested in the physical world, but also in the abstract, or Form if you wanna go there), even when humans aren't around to observe it. What's also going on is that people confuse the notations by which the content is expressed (which are themselves inventions), with the content itself, which is the statement, or the case, or however you like.

>>7845887

Here, tell me again about that time that you invented (or some guy did) about how, when there's a right triangle, and the two things add up to the other thing, and how you made it be like that on purpose because it's an invention and you can make it do whatever you want. Oh, wait...

>>7846764
It's both, we invented numbers, shapes, etc from discoveries in nature.

Natural numbers and prime numbers are objects we've known and worked with for thousands of years.

Their properties and definitions are something we can easily see in nature. Let's say that you have some amount of bricks, and that the only way to organize them in equal-sized stacks is to seperate all of them (or stay with one stack of all bricks). Then that means you have a prime number of bricks.

Some claims about them, like how you can have arbitrarily long arithmetic sequences of primes and how there are infinite pairs of prime numbers that differ by a finite [math]N<7*10^7[/math], are very simple to understand- and yet, they've only been verified in recent years.

There are still dozens of 'simple' theorems that people can't even begin to solve.

That means that there are still plenty of properties of numbers that we have yet to discover. All of the claims we prove are true in nature; No one 'invented' them, but we have to use the tools we have to discover what's true and what's not.

>>7845887
>>7845902
>>7845944
>>7846719
>>7846730
>>7846764
>>7846765
>>7846781
>>7847903
DONT RESPOND TO THE FUCKING BAIT AND DONT FORGET TO FUCKING SAGE

Axioms are invented, the rest is discovered.