> Math is necessarily consistent because, when we find inconsistencies, we remove them, so they are no longer valid math. The former doesn't follow from the la

> Math is necessarily consistent because, when we find inconsistencies, we remove them, so they are no longer valid math. The former doesn't follow from the latter, because we may simply not yet have found any inconsistency, even though it exists. edit: Not sure if your point is just "if someone finds a contradiction in ZFC, it doesn't break maths, we'll just find a different foundation". Because I agree. But GP's point was about ZFC, a concrete set of axioms, being consistent.