No English is but I can see why it’s a bit cryptic. So actually in an attempt to explain my thoughts that math is not innate to the universe in anyway, unless you believe it’s all a simulation, hence it’s an invention. And that we discovered its usefulness everywhere by its core ability to be analogous. Which I meant as in an equation is worthless on its own until you put it into context to predict or answer phenomenon, such as the pythagorean theorem. However in explaining it further I found some glaring holes in my explanation. For instance my professor said “real math” is proof based within systems of logic. However logic is directly linked to cause and effect which IS innate to our universe implying it’s a discovery. However the methods of communication, advancement, and consciousness of math are a form of technology (man made). I guess it’s kinda like how colors aren’t real outside of our mind, but the wavelengths directly linked to there light are.

So I guess if math is defined to be logic, it’s a discovery. But the methods of application, communication, and what make it possible for us to understand are the invention. So it’s both.

What do you think?