> In physics there are real tests and relations that have meaning so it makes sense to ask if String Theory is correct or useful. In mathematics there are compl

> In physics there are real tests and relations that have meaning so it makes sense to ask if String Theory is correct or useful. In mathematics there are complex structures built from axioms and sometimes these structures can be related to each other in interesting ways. Will anything important ever come of String Theory? Maybe, but from a mathematical point of view no theory needs to correctly model what is real or have demonstrated application to be worthy of exploration and study. You say this as if it contradicts some point that the author is trying to make or some key assumption that he holds. Yet on the contrary, the author himself makes a similar point in the article: > But the way we’ve modeled mathematics here has been much more about what statements can be derived (or entailed) than about any kind of abstract notion of what statements can be “tagged as true”. In other words, we’ve been more concerned with “structurally deriving” that “” than in saying that “1 + 1 = 2 is true”. That is, math is not necessarily about truth or usefulness in some (meta)physical sense, it is about entailment from certain axioms via formal rules.