>>22
"because that's how we defined the symbol for the..." What do we do this based off of? It's either based off of an axiom, and so is the product thereof, or it is an axiom in itself, being a truth taken for granted. If you can prove that 1+1=2 without using axioms, then you've just won, but I think you'll find that impossible. Now, unless you're going to contest that axioms lie in the domain of philosophy, it can be shown that the most basic mathematical equations are completely reliant upon the creation of philosophy. It seems reasonable to, if that conclusion is met, say that math is reliant on philosophy.