Lol

yes it is just counting

I mean that is a very elementary understanding of math

Very very so

math is made up to count known tangible and intangible objects.

Even the ancient greeks didnt just call math counting

They would probably call it geometry

that was all the rage those days

What is elementary is that others convoluted it and make it their god. Not me.

Who cares what they called it

Not me

Really?

Who cares what the rage was

Not me

It is about what is

It has evolved

Contemporary mathematics is far more beautiful and far reaching than older views of it

Its more of a game of logic than numbers lol

you prove there are infinite numbers with logic

not with counting

I fail to see the beauty in it as a tool. It is a handclap nowadays. I see it as a tool that is given more credit and weight then the actual being that created it. Just like spoken language. Being able to communicate telepathically is beauty to me. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I might add.

alright

math is a tool used to express that which comes out of the mind to become more then a thought but. I don't need math to do anything accept show another how to manipulate terra into other tools. But I do not need it to live.

I think math is more a set of axioms from which all the true facts are derivable from the laws of logic only. The true facts are true by the nature of logic even if we dont realize they are true yet

As soon as we set the axioms though; what follows is necessary by logic

The fact most of the results are usable as tools is coincidence

And may indicate a fundamental logic to the laws of nature

Nah math is something we use to describe terra that we manipulate into other objects. To much weight it given to it. For example you say 1+1=2 but to me it equals 44 and so forth. That is how you reach a new level of understanding when it comes to math. It is a tool to be manipulated just like any other.

We call two the Successor of 1. It is defined as 1+1

Our disagreement is an issue of definition

If you agreed with my definition you'd have to call 1+1 = 2

Thats the logic to it

no because the first number to be argued is 0

?

irrelevant

1 is defined as the successor of 0

Not

lol

nope

I defined it as such

Just now