Maths cannot be proven true it is a human invention

I thank posting their arguments. REBUTTALS Pro: "Maths is all around us and in everything that cannot be denied is it true? Well many say that it is true by definition. But why should we blindly accept this." We don't accept it blindly. Definition that you are talking about is like naming. For example, the word "two" or number"2" are such definitions and we know what one would mean when s/he says two or 2 apples. Would it be blindly accepting that s/he means apple and another apple when s/he says two or 2 apples? No, it wouldn't. To give another example, with that logic even the words we use in a language are also definitions. For example, we have the word "apple" is a representative definition of a fruit. Why should we accept blindly that the word "apple" means the specified fruit? Simply because we have defined it so.. Therefore, we accept them to be so because we have defined them to be so. For example, we have defined “=” to mean “is equal to”.. Why should we blindly accept that it means “is equal to”? First of all, it is not blindly accepting, but accepting because it is defined to be so. Define: "to state or set forth the meaning of (a word, phrase, etc.)"[1] Pro: "Maths is based on axioms that, as the definition provided states are assumed without proof. Surely we should, as inquisitive beings, question just why we should assume these are true." Simply because we have defined them to be so. Pro: "An axiom or postulate as defined in classical philosophy, is a statement (in mathematics often shown in symbolic form) that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question... "As used in mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms". Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be true within the system of logic they define (e.g., (A and B) implies A), while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are actually substantive assertions about the elements of the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic)."[2] Pro:"Arguing that maths is all around us and is there to be discovered which is platonic. It would exist even if humans didn't exist it would be there no matter what. Many mathematicians regard themselves as 'hunters' or 'discoverers' that feel they are finding maths around us. Assuming the above points then maths is no different than faith, in other words people who believe maths is there regardless of our existence they have faith that it is there. But is it true? Obviously in epistemology terms nothing is true we cannot know anything. I feel that maths is a tool or a language that humans have created or invented with a purpose in mind to interpret reality and the world around us. We cannot see the number 2 for example, we can't find some where in the world where we can view the number two just like we cannot find the word apple. This suggests that it's limited within the human brain and any other life on any planets in our universe would have a completely different type of maths regarding that the same physics would apply for our universe." Pro actually summarizes their arguments in their last sentence:Pro: "To be clear I am not saying maths isn't helpful or vital of course it is but it is simply a human creation no different than language (respectively)."If someone asks you to prove that your language is correct, you simply give him/her a dictionary and let him/her compare it. If everything is done according to dictionary, then they are true. Similarly, to say that math is not true because it depends on definitions is pointless.. Math can be proven true simply by showing that it is true according to definitions. Accepting the definitions without proof is not accepting them blindly, but accepting them because we defined them to be so.CONCLUSIONI refuted all Pro's arguments.. I will wait for their arguments in last round. SOURCES [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org...