my experience studying math has been that if someone uses the word “mathematical” when they’re trying to argue something, then there is a decent chance they don’t really know what they’re talking about. if they did, they would probably use a more specific term or cite a theorem or proof. math is not a monolith.
your anecdote is a pretty spectacular example of that. how nice it would be if we could “mathematically prove” that ZFC is objectively true. and also how nice it would be if we could “mathematically define” what it even means for something to be “true” or “objectively true”.
my experience studying math has been that if someone uses the word “mathematical” when they’re trying to argue something, then there is a decent chance they don’t really know what they’re talking about. if they did, they would probably use a more specific term or cite a theorem or proof. math is not a monolith.
your anecdote is a pretty spectacular example of that. how nice it would be if we could “mathematically prove” that ZFC is objectively true. and also how nice it would be if we could “mathematically define” what it even means for something to be “true” or “objectively true”.