>>6606042>Axioms are what they teach you in school so that understanding math is easier. Doesn't mean that you have to stick to the axioms for the rest of your life and take them as gospel.A point is its axiomatic definition. If a point in geometry becomes a pragmatic social construction not taken as gospel then the field of geometry falls apart.
>even non-Euclidean geometry had a reason to be developed.The argument was about anticipation, not whether a new discovery filled a gap in our knowledge. Nobody even a few hundred years ago anticipated these new fields of study. There is a subtle difference between an undeveloped idea and an undiscovered one.
>THERE'S NO INHERENT METAPHYSCIAL MEANING TO PRIME NUMBERS UNLESS YOU WANT TO ASSIGN IT A METAPHYSICAL MEANING THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY SHARED BY ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.How would you even practice mathematics if you didn't accept abstract universal definitions?
