I think you've got it, RAV; math is built on human abstraction of real-world experience, including linguistic experience (and indeed math builds its own linguistic experience), so of course it would be dumb to pretend that math transcends human experience. A glance at the history of mathematics further reconnects math to the real-world system being modeled; for example, Isaac Newton invented calculus because he found it was a pain in the ass to model physics with existing math. I think that's what you're saying, and it's certainly what I say.
RAV wrote:Language versus math is misleading, as their processes share the same principles but from different starting points, giving them different specialization without being inherently superiour or with less flaws. The particles of math are often too elemental, and the particles of language are sometimes not elemental enough. Both can be simply inconvenient for certain works. Math is an added tool, not a successor to language.
Language versus math is like Pascal versus Assembly, not wonky esoteric versus precise science.
I find this paragraph strange, as it speaks in generalities without characterizing actual phenomena. Math and language are both semiotic and so not distinct concepts, as I think you're saying. Also, math simplifies even if it requires abstracting, and it presents unambiguous definitions even if this removes character.
Common language (everyday thought) is more touchy-feely. Toaster ¿good/notgood? depends on ¿does it create toast which I enjoy? Unless I'm trying to engineer the toaster, I don't care about modeling the evaporation of water from the bread's surface. Because we're empathetic creatures, we like our common language to transmit feelings because we can nourish our own emotions in that fashion. Of course, the deduced implications of a statement or action can reveal intent and thereby transmit just as much feeling as looking at a young lady with googly-eyes across a candle lit table. If I say "Take the last train to Clarkesville, and I'll meet you at the station," nearly every element of the statement is mathematical, yet in the Monkees song it substantiates the claim "I must see you again," which in turn transmits the touchy-feely "You are emotionally valuable to me."
Again, RAV, I think these are the phenomena you're hinting at, but I still find your manner of speech foreign.
"Oh, you have promise. But wait until you have more years fall upon you, and you will see what a shell your heart will become."