You have some deeply flawed (or entirely absent) philosophical upbringing. There are no "foundations" to anything - all definitions are arbitrary. To assert th

You have some deeply flawed (or entirely absent) philosophical upbringing. There are no "foundations" to anything - all definitions are arbitrary. To assert that a premise is fallacious mandates that you have some prior notion of "fallaciousness". You don't have an objective criterion for asserting whether one definition is better than another because you don't have a notion of "betterness" - it's all conventional. It's precisely because I am an over-zealous formalist is why I see Mathematics for what it is - grammar, syntax and semantics. It's just language.