I have never understood the relativism about math fundamentals. What does it matter what we "agree to" or not? Either it is true or not. There is like no room for "kinda true but really it ..." in '1 + 1 = 2'. And I am not talking about notation semantics here.
This isn't what I'm talking about. The agreement means it's not "universal". It's only true because we agree it's true. Can you prove that 1 = 1 or do we have to agree that 1 = 1? If you can't prove it, is it a "universal truth"? I'm asserting that a truth which requires an agreed context[0] is not "universal".
The universal nature of mathematical truth isn’t dependent on agreement. Instead it’s only universally true when you include all those seemingly unspoken “agreements.”
I'm not sure what you mean by this, particularly this phrasing: "sets of axioms where 1 = 1". 1 = 1 is an axiom, not something that's proven by any set of axioms.
But I'm willing to believe I'm simply naive here. You say there is some set of axioms which prove that 1 = 1. Are those axioms not agreements? Since you seem to be familiar, what are those axioms?
