Absolute Logical Truth Has No Foundations But Random Occurence

[Eodnhoj7]

I am asking you to resort to arguing your case using strictly mathematics if natural language is ambiguous.

Philosophy is not even meant to be provable.

Furthermore, there is nothing provable in the philosophy of mathematics. The philosophy of mathematics is not axiomatic and is not a subdivision of mathematics.

You are confusing the philosophy of mathematics with metamathematics, which is indeed axiomatic and a subdivision of mathematics.

You are ignoring what I am asking. Argue the above strictly using math please.

[godelian]

I am asking you to resort to arguing your case using strictly mathematics if natural language is ambiguous.

Philosophy is not even meant to be provable.

Furthermore, there is nothing provable in the philosophy of mathematics. The philosophy of mathematics is not axiomatic and is not a subdivision of mathematics.

You are confusing the philosophy of mathematics with metamathematics, which is indeed axiomatic and a subdivision of mathematics.

You are ignoring what I am asking. Argue the above strictly using math please.

I am not making a mathematical claim ("deductive"). I am making a claim in the philosophy of mathematics ("inductive"). You cannot make claims in the philosophy of mathematics ("inductive") using strictly mathematics ("deductive"). That is not how these things work.

[Eodnhoj7]

Philosophy is not even meant to be provable.

Furthermore, there is nothing provable in the philosophy of mathematics. The philosophy of mathematics is not axiomatic and is not a subdivision of mathematics.

You are confusing the philosophy of mathematics with metamathematics, which is indeed axiomatic and a subdivision of mathematics.

You are ignoring what I am asking. Argue the above strictly using math please.

I am not making a mathematical claim ("deductive"). I am making a claim in the philosophy of mathematics ("inductive"). You cannot make claims in the philosophy of mathematics ("inductive") using strictly mathematics ("deductive"). That is not how these things work.

So given the faults of natural language, it's vagueness, etc., the interpretation of mathematics using this language becomes vague.

Given your indepth understanding of mathematics explain to me fully the number "one".

[godelian]

So given the faults of natural language, it's vagueness, etc., the interpretation of mathematics using this language becomes vague.

Possibly, but who even cares?

[Eodnhoj7]

So given the faults of natural language, it's vagueness, etc., the interpretation of mathematics using this language becomes vague.

Possibly, but who even cares?

Well apparently mathematics doesn't provide the precision many are after due to its dependence on natural language.