Is math 'true', or merely an approximation of truth?

>E: 0/0 is indeterminate so we just avoid that
No we don't.

Depends on the math and the associated implementations inherent in the idea of math "corresponding" to reality

yes we do, we avoid multiplicating and dividing by variables/zeros as much as possible in calculations

2 + 2 = 2
2-2=2

honestly wish I could punch you in the face IRL for making this retarded thread

Truth is an approximation of reality.

Reality is an aproximation of possibilities.

Why wouldn't we? What dividing by zero stands for in real life? And why would we be doing that, since doing it leads to errors (fake proofs that 1=2 and so are based on 0 division)?

>Why wouldn't we?
Because there's no reason to.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory

math is an abstraction of reality made by our brains so that it can be better understood.
so it is an approximation of truth

there is no Truth but Mathematics and Gauß (pbuh) is its Messenger.
Math ackbar!

Math is a ponzi scheme used to create more positions of tenure.

The way I look at it at this point is that all numbers exist and math is a set of strings exploring their relationships. One important feature is that '2' doesn't represent an eternal 2. It represents a relational 2 from some starting point, and in some cases that is '0'. This '0' itself is not an identity of the eternal 0 either.

One feature of the real numbers that is interesting is for the eternal numbers the relational difference between each is both unbounded and none.

God based the universe according to mathematica, all those physishits who say other otherwise should be killed.

Math is logically consistent with its own definitions. It is a tool to analyze and predict but it is not anchored in reality.

I can make valid conjectures in math that have no physical analog. I might talk about an infinitely long string with a width epsilon and no such string could ever exist in reality. But the math works out.

Start with two, then add two on your fingers. If "5" is the result you obtain then you clearly don't know how to count.

Which god?

>Which ever one I believe in and you don't. So no matter where this conversation goes. Your wrong. I'm not going to provide any empirical evidence towards anything I say, I'm just going to go in circles and tell you that you're wrong.
>t. every idiot theist ever.

Let me tip my fedora in honour to you my very intelligent friend.

Don't tip your Fedora, make sure you tip your local pastor instead. Or you'll go to hell.

Don't tip your Fedora, make sure you tip your local pastor instead. Or you'll go to hell.

>Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
>Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?
– John 18:37-38

Lrn2wheel fgt pls
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory

Excellent specimen of theists.

Everything corresponds to the way things actually are in the sense that everything is physical, even something you make up right now is in your brain (and derived from collected elements, can't make up something from nothing).

Mathematics is surely very consistent and powerful, but there is no reason to think it isn't just random made up shit that on a baser level is somewhat analogous to nature in representation. That doesn't negate its consistency and power, however.

Is your experience of looking at a flower, a "truthful" one? The colours, the 'time', the angle, and the other unrelated on-goings of your brain that affect and comprise the experience, are these part of the "truthfulness"? But sure, the flower regardless of you is true right, yet the conception and representation of it is largely subjective. A conjuration of your brain. I'm of the mind that it doesn't matter how you think or structure something, it's not unbridled reality, therefore no quite true. Experience, measurement, or expression of unbridled reality is impossible as these things inherently nullify its "unbridled" nature. Just as expressing it as "unbridled" does. If you can imagine, what if your perception of colours were instead perceived as numbers? What if a unique green had an equally unique sense of 37ness in its place? Impossible to describe for us bound the unique green, of course. Neither is more truthful, just perception. By this, we could say that everything is merely an approximation or misconstruction of truth.

Good post.

>>That doesn't negate its consistency and power, however

It's consistent because of the axioms it's built upon. Any axiomatic system is consistent by definition.

truth is no-thing, no-condition; but there is some-thing to be learned from every-thing. truth is silence, man is all measure.

Mathematics is the only truth. Everything else is a belief.

Math is not true, math is truth itself as envisioned by Plato. Only ignorant i.e. evil people will disagree