618
Theories on Theories
(mander.xyz)
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Math also fails sometimes, we've had to invent new math along the way because math is always correct only in the given constraints of how we currently understand math. If those constraints are challenged math evolves.
Example, imaginary numbers weren't a thing for a good while and some stuff didn't work correctly. All math stands upon 1+1=2, we don't know if that always holds true, for now we asume it.
There are no correct axioms. You can change the axioms as you wish and make your own math2.0. And you will be able to apply it to things that follow thoose axioms but finding such things that follow them is the only hard part. We define 1+1=2 and that is true because we define it that way. If it does not hold true in any physical or something then it is that you are applying a correct math for a system which doesnt work with that math(i.e, you are the problem for assuming the same axiom is true for the real system)
I might go even further and say there's no "math". There are a wide variety of axiomatic systems (eg. games). None has the sole claim to being "math". Maybe they're all "math".
(On the other hand... I guess any system that contains the "natural numbers" would be sufficient for the bulk of what's widely considered "math".)
I'll pick my side. They are all mathematics
(I belive math and mathematics are different. What is commonly called math is just numbers and stuff. But mathematics fits the general description of all axioms)