>Almost nothing is commutative or associative, so an operation

>>8965802
>le nature of reality

>>8965802
Math is a concept, invented by humans, to very poorly represent the world and the events surrounding them.

>>8965861
Very poorly?

>>8966798
Look at the hoops string theorists had to jump through (Witten got a fields medal for his work on strings).

>>8967607
You're confusing math with mathematical physics my dude

>>8967616
The point is they had to invent new math to describe the world and events around them. And it's still not done. My dude.

>>8967622
Math is not invented, it is discovered.

>>8967624
It's an artificial construct made by humans. It's invented. Physics is discovery.

>>8967636
There are far too many "coincidences" of mathematical constructions prefiguring natural phenomena for mathematics to be an invention.

File: polar daberoni.jpg (2MB, 2160x2168px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2160x2168px

>>8965802
>the question isn't why exponentiation isn't commutative or associative; it's why addition and multiplication are
It's because all alternating groups with the exception of A4 are simple
you fucking brainlet

>>8967645
It was invented to describe natural phenomena, so it would have been a much bigger failure if there weren't any "coincidences"

>>8967666
Wrong. Math was first used to aid technological development (dwelling construction) and economic activity and that is still its main use. And you missed the point: purely mathematical ideas, ideas which were not "developed" to describe natural phenomena, turn out to be describing natural phenomena down the line after all.

Because cardinal arithmetic is based on sets - classes with objects with no structure and thus many isomorphisms (bijections, here).

But those why questions mostly just lead to new ones.