Is mathematics a completely arbitrary system?

I take it to be that mathematics is not created by humans, but discovered. Is this agreeable?

If both of the above are true, then the action of counting is a man-made construct. Can we all take this as a step and move forward from here?

p.s. I would really really really appreciate if you took this journey with me, as long as you are able.

## Mathematics=natural/universal law. Counting=human influence.

### Re: Mathematics=natural/universal law. Counting=human influence.

Fact is your maths ends in contradiction an integer=a non-integer

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ssible.pdf

1 is a finite number it stops

A finite decimal is one that stops, like 0.157

A non-finite decimal like 0.999... does not stop

when a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.999.. then maths ends in contradiction

another way

1 is an integer a whole number

0.888... is a non-integer it is not a whole number

0.999... is a non-integer not a whole number

when a integer 1 =a non-integer 0.999... maths ends in contradiction

Mathematics by ending in contradiction your classical logic proves you can prove anything in maths ie Fermat's last theorem or disprove Fermat's last theorem

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ssible.pdf

1 is a finite number it stops

A finite decimal is one that stops, like 0.157

A non-finite decimal like 0.999... does not stop

when a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.999.. then maths ends in contradiction

another way

1 is an integer a whole number

0.888... is a non-integer it is not a whole number

0.999... is a non-integer not a whole number

when a integer 1 =a non-integer 0.999... maths ends in contradiction

Mathematics by ending in contradiction your classical logic proves you can prove anything in maths ie Fermat's last theorem or disprove Fermat's last theorem

### Re: Mathematics=natural/universal law. Counting=human influence.

This is broadly the same argument used by a number of computer scientists over the years. If the universe was deterministic it would be paralyzed.anne wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:44 am Fact is your maths ends in contradiction an integer=a non-integer

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ssible.pdf

1 is a finite number it stops

A finite decimal is one that stops, like 0.157

A non-finite decimal like 0.999... does not stop

when a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.999.. then maths ends in contradiction

another way

1 is an integer a whole number

0.888... is a non-integer it is not a whole number

0.999... is a non-integer not a whole number

when a integer 1 =a non-integer 0.999... maths ends in contradiction

Mathematics by ending in contradiction your classical logic proves you can prove anything in maths ie Fermat's last theorem or disprove Fermat's last theorem

Some entropy is needed. 1 is not 1. 1 is approximately 1

Classical computers rob us of this approximation. Quantum computers rob us of comprehension.

So the two ought to complement each other? Consistent logic ( 1 = 1 ). Paraconsistent logic ( 1 ≈ 1 ).

Down the quantum rabbit hole we go...