I'd agree: there's a common misconception that math is "objective." Even if one agrees on the axioms (Axiom of Choice [1]), one must reach consensus on definiti

I'd agree: there's a common misconception that math is "objective." Even if one agrees on the axioms (Axiom of Choice [1]), one must reach consensus on definitions, which seem to be consciously chosen to allow generalization of theorems to more mathematical objects; that is, building connections between previously disparate fields of math, e.g. algebra and geometry, calculus and geometry, etc. Why have many domain-specific theorems when we can have one? One could have a valid proof to a theorem, but there's the human element of having people understand and accept the result. That said, I think when people speak of math, they speak of its application to the real-world, not the proofs. [1] - From the Wikipedia page for the axiom, Jerry Bona has an amusing quote: "The axiom of choice is obviously true, the well-ordering principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's lemma?"