> Curiously, this review (and perhaps the book being reviewed?) makes no mention of the model of mathematics as a language. This seems to be a common idea among

> Curiously, this review (and perhaps the book being reviewed?) makes no mention of the model of mathematics as a language. This seems to be a common idea among working mathematicians and physicists[1,2], and it is rather clear that the question of reality of a language is ill-formed. Sorry, if this isn't clear to everyone, why does this result in the rejection of mathematics as a language rather than the rejection of the question of the realism of mathematics? The latter seems much easier with no downsides (that I can see), whereas the rejection of mathematics as a language has many downsides.