There are two ways to see it. But that's also the problem. > What does it mean to be "true" besides that something follows from other truths? I agree with you

There are two ways to see it. But that's also the problem. > What does it mean to be "true" besides that something follows from other truths? I agree with you, but I also don't. You know as well as I, that 'true' can mean something besides 'that which follows from other truths'. All the rules you have to rely on (such as'implication) - that's a truth you are dependent on for math to work, but can not define within math. Implication is a fundamental foundation. But can you define implication without using the concept of implication? > The choice of axioms matters, sure, but everything that's true within a system follows from the axioms of that system. It's easy to point out flaws in reasoning. It's so, so much harder to have an airtight reasoning system, that goes for mathematics and computation, both, together, alone, etc. > What does it mean to be "true" besides that something follows from other truths? Truth is true, no more, no less. Once you turn it into symbols, it turns into a mess (or a work of art).