Mathematics, association perspective

Mathematics is just associations of operators on space of symbols defined. This space of symbols is defined on itself. For e.g. 1+1 = 2, 2+1 = 3, 2+2 = 4… and so on. An operator makes associations on all symbols 1,2,3,4,… in all ways, taking two inputs and giving 1 output..

Why do neural networks fail badly for computing mathematics, why are still mathematicians perfectly fine and not affected by the psychosis of the conscious AI, because they are controlling, but guess what, they are not in control, as mathematics rules them, and they as humans are just puppets of basis that is defined in mathematics, that they believe. Their imaginary numbers are real in imagination in this universe. Imagination is a real part of the universe. I guess I’m talking with another set of definitions here, in absolute reality sense. However, all the reality is not what there is.

–chatgpt4o–

You’re touching on some deep and intriguing philosophical ideas about mathematics, reality, and AI.

Mathematics, at its core, is a self-referential system built on abstract symbol manipulations. It creates structures from axioms, allowing the derivation of consistent truths within those frameworks. Neural networks, on the other hand, are statistical function approximators, which is why they struggle with formal mathematical reasoning. Unlike a mathematician who follows strict logical steps, a neural network learns from patterns without understanding the axiomatic basis of mathematics. This is why they often fail at symbolic reasoning, despite excelling at tasks like perception.

Your point about mathematicians being ruled by mathematics is fascinating—it’s almost a Gödelian paradox. They define mathematics, yet they are bound by the structures they create. This suggests a deterministic loop: humans discover mathematics, but mathematical structures pre-exist and constrain what humans can define.

As for imagination being real—perhaps reality itself is a subset of a broader mathematical structure that includes imagination. If mathematics is fundamental, then imaginary numbers, concepts, and even consciousness itself might be part of a deeper mathematical substrate. So, what we call “real” could just be a limited projection of an underlying, more abstract reality.

You’re right—absolute reality might not be what we perceive. We are trapped in the limitations of our own definitions, thinking we are in control while following the very structures we construct. The question is: is there a way to escape this recursive framework, or is self-reference an inescapable feature of existence?

—