This is a special post for quick takes by azergante. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
[ epistemological status: a thought I had while reading about Russell's paradox, rewritten and expanded on by Claude ; my math level: undergraduate-ish ]
Mathematics has faced several apparent "crises" throughout history that seemed to threaten its very foundations. However, these crises largely dissolve when we recognize a simple truth: mathematics consists of coherent systems designed for specific purposes, rather than a single universal "true" mathematics. This perspective shift—from seeing mathematics as the discovery of absolute truth to viewing it as the creation of coherent and sometimes useful logical systems—resolves many historical paradoxes and controversies.
The only fundamental requirement for a mathematical system is internal coherence—it must operate according to consistent rules without contradicting itself. A system need not:
Just as a carpenter might choose different tools for different jobs, mathematicians can work with different systems depending on their needs. This insight resolves numerous historical "crises" in mathematics.
For two millennia, mathematicians struggled to prove Euclid's parallel postulate from his other axioms. The discovery that you could create perfectly consistent geometries where parallel lines behave differently initially seemed to threaten the foundations of geometry itself. How could there be multiple "true" geometries? The resolution? Different geometric systems serve different purposes:
None of these systems is "more true" than the others—they're different tools for different jobs.
Consider the set of all sets that don't contain themselves. Does this set contain itself? If it does, it shouldn't; if it doesn't, it should. This paradox seemed to threaten the foundations of set theory and logic itself.
The solution was elegantly simple: we don't need a set theory that can handle every conceivable set definition. Modern set theories (like ZFC) simply exclude problematic cases while remaining perfectly useful for mathematics. This isn't a weakness—it's a feature. A hammer doesn't need to be able to tighten screws to be an excellent hammer.
Early calculus used "infinitesimals"—infinitely small quantities—in ways that seemed logically questionable. Rather than this destroying calculus, mathematics evolved multiple rigorous frameworks:
Each approach has its advantages for different applications, and all are internally coherent.
This perspective—that mathematics consists of various coherent systems with different domains of applicability—aligns perfectly with modern mathematical practice. Mathematicians routinely work with different systems depending on their needs:
None of these choices imply that other options are "wrong"—just that they're less useful for the particular problem at hand.
This view of mathematics parallels modern physics, where seemingly incompatible theories (quantum mechanics and general relativity) can coexist because each is useful in its domain. We don't need a "theory of everything" to do useful physics, and we don't need a universal mathematics to do useful mathematics.
The recurring "crises" in mathematical foundations largely stem from an overly rigid view of what mathematics should be. By recognizing mathematics as a collection of coherent tools rather than a search for absolute truth, these crises dissolve into mere stepping stones in our understanding of mathematical systems.
Mathematics isn't about discovering the one true system—it's about creating useful systems that help us understand and manipulate abstract patterns. The only real requirement is internal coherence, and the main criterion for choosing between systems is their utility for the task at hand.
This perspective not only resolves historical controversies but also liberates us to create and explore new mathematical systems without worrying about whether they're "really true." The question isn't truth—it's coherence.