>>14283395>2+5 has no reference to the real world yet it's perfectly understood by you.Except it isn't. The symbology for it is recognizable and translatable to other symbology, but if you told someone to conceive of that as an idea without sensory representation, it would be impossible.
You can't think 2+5, or 7, or VII. You can think 2 apples+5 apples or 2 strokes+5 strokes, but numbers themselves are too abstract to actually be conceived of.
Now obviously whether something can be fully conceived and whether it can be adequately described are different things, and your answer of notation as a way to codify pure maths is fundamentally correct, but the basis for your conclusion is still flawed.
