Do you believe in god or math?

[The Grand Nudger]

No, you said this " If numbers or math are a wild hallucination...they are a wild hallucination shared by every human being down to every last detail."

Lets ask various unfortunate Down Syndrome human beings if they can follow your premise. How about those in a coma? Still humans, I presume.
You never answered if your kids get 100 percent scores on their math tests. Did you?

But to answer your question, the solipsism can only point to where we can never have closure. It is a shadow, yes, but how can you get rid of it?

Perhaps you can illuminate us all as to how we can perfect ourselves from this subjective shadow, and have all knowledge/math be perfect to us all as we breath the information from the universe in and out.

I await your revelation, because that is what it would be, if you know how to banish the shadow of solipsism.

The shadow of solipsism changes nothing about our understanding of these concepts, it only adds the word illusory (and obviously, plenty of room for unbelievably thick psuedo-intellectual logorrhea.). Math still works within the illusion if that is what our existence is in reality. This isn't a revelation. Solipsism isn't something that has to be dealt with or gotten rid of. It doesn't change anything about our understanding of anything whatsoever, just adds words which provide no additional insight, I'm so sick of retreats to solipsism. It's a juvenile argument, possibly even unbearably so when it comes to something like math.

Perfect knowledge? Good luck with that. I wasn't aware that this was a requirement for knowledge, if it were all knowledge fails to pass the test. These things we know, (including math) must only be correct as far as we can tell, based on as much evidence as possible....and math definitely passes that test. What more are you honestly expecting?

Yes, I said that. I said that because it's a statement of fact. Again, referring to people with disabilities or invoking test scores has nothing to do with math, and everything to do with people, so why do you persist in this?

Care to "prove" that 1+1=3 for somebody somewhere? Any given persons score on a math test has absolutely no bearing over whether or not math is different, that's a measurement of an individual's aptitude and memory with regards to a system.

You're talking about utterly simple arithmetic there.

Moreover, 1+1=3 or even 1+1=2 is utterly meaningless until those numbers are actually associated with physical quantities.

Here's an equation for you of the form of 1+1=3 that is actually true.

1 pint of milk + 1 cup of milk = 3 cups of milk.

That's 1+1=3 and it's a TRUE statement.

Simple arithmetic? Simple arithmetic and theoretical physics are both based on the same well demonstrated principles. "Simple arithmetic" is foundational. If the system that we call math were to somehow change the manner in which it is composed or determined as we get beyond "simple arithmetic"..if 1+1=3 at a higher level then it is not uniform, and someone somewhere is incorrect. Fortunately for us this does not occur.

Meaningless? 1+1=3 is a "statement" utterly comprised of meaning..there isn't a wasted breath start to finish. It is incorrect, as is your attempt to shoehorn it in to fit your argument. 1 pint of milk (2/1)+ 1 cup of milk(1/1) = 3 cups of milk (3/3), as has been pointed out, you used bad notation. You wanted your sum in cups, but you failed to account for the number cups in a pint with your equation, which is why it ended up being incorrect (even though the sum was correct...see, in your head you actually added the cups, used proper math, but you didn't express that in your post, because you're trying to manufacture an argument out of thin air). That's why mixing words with meaning into math is a bad idea, and why language complicates arithmetic whilst numbers simplify it, which I think I mentioned pages ago. If you're going to add pints and cups, you have to use notation which demonstrates each unit of measure in relation to each other (which is why I placed the fractions above in parenthesis). This same "equation" could be leveraged to human reproduction, where 1+1=3+....but that's not an accurate representation of the scenario is it? In both cases math is being used to obscure rather than simplify, and it's being done by leveraging bad notation. This isn't highbrow stuff, I don't see what's so hard to understand here.....

1+1=3 is not a true statement, and never will be. Next?

Look, you can both beat your heads into a wall trying to prove that 1+1=3, or that math isn't "perfect", but the arguments presented thusfar are not compelling, it would probably be better to address whatever concepts you've both settled upon that rest on this mistaken assumption..as I'm entirely sure that a discussion about whatever that is would be more interesting than this one. I've been waiting to hear where this is going for ages, if it isn't going anywhere at all (if we're just on a merry go round of bad analogies and poor arithmetic) then I think I've spent enough time in this thread already.