>>12841567Getting a big brainlet energy from your post but I'll assume you're not just a troll and try to explain it.
The claim you're calling "bullshit" on is
>you gotta start with something undefined only when that thing you start from is intuitively clearIt's logically equivalent to saying "what is not intuitively clear requires a definition".
Have you ever read a math book or an article that you could understand? The concepts that are not intuitively clear are always defined. For example, the concept of a manifold, or a topological space, or differentiability.
You say the vast majority of discoveries in mathematics have never been intuitive, but that's completely in line with my claim. We define the things we don't find intuitive, and only through such careful logical precision can we make serious progress.
However, you cannot keep defining terms forever. You always have to stop somewhere. Again, take any math book that you've read and understand (actually tell me the book so I can show you the examples) and you will always find that the concepts are defined in terms of undefined concepts, which are supposed to be intuitively clear.
Intuition is not bullshit. Without intuition, nobody would understand mathematics, for the same reason as I said above. Nobody first learns mathematics by learning formal logic, rules of inferences and doing everything that way (which still requires intuition and unprovable facts). They know what reasoning is correct not because they translate it to formal logic and laboriously check the steps, but rather because it's immediately intuitive.
