It’s not hidden knowledge. You just lack the cross domain knowledge (which is al

It’s not hidden knowledge. You just lack the cross domain knowledge (which is almost universal in the contemporary academy) to engage in the discussion.

I can have these discussions with public figures in the field most of which are well known, with relative ease, but you aren’t even aware of these issues.

I mean, intuitionism, operationalism, Brouwer, Bridgman? I mean… are you in expert in doing math? Maybe, but do you know what math consists of and what it means? It’s the dumbest language man has invented. It consists of positional names, positional naming, addition/subtraction, and agreement on less, more, equals. In other words it’s a glorified balance scale, which is how and why it came into being. But that ‘dumbness’ is why it’s so invulnerable to conflation and inflation, even if the discipline relies on conflationary inflationary concepts (like conflating count and direction), or the rather silly necessity of the square root of a negative one to compensate for it by rotation. I mean, I kind of consider most mathematical grammar silly (and Micheal in our organization works on reforming it).

Reply addressees: @Ket_Math_Dad @EricMorganCoach @Viorp2 @WerrellBradley @AntonyArakkal1 @Sargon_of_Akkad