You And Whose Universe?

I love the way that numbers are always correct. My real-life experience of numbers only really includes calculations involving plus/minus/times/and division but I would imagine that all the way up to eight-dimensional integral calculus, there is never any stage where the results of numbers are wrong. The complexity may obscure the fact that something is correct but deep down both sides of the equals sign always agree. I find myself involuntarily calculating with dates of birth to work out when someone left school or joined the army or any other milestone and the additions always work - it would be a huge issue if they didn't - we would have found something wrong with numbers and as numbers are not dependent on pesky, real-world things, they are ... frictionless... shall we say - no outside influences muck around with them and skew them above or below the line. There is no mathematical equivalent of friction that means that the accounts of a company are plus-or-minus any degree of error (actually in the world of mega-super-rich-credit-corp then there probably is but there shouldn't be). Which makes it all the more annoying that there is no formula for prime numbers. But minds immeasurably superior to mine have been on that one for years.

It would be most upsetting to find a fault-line in mathematics where a simple addition failed. I was going to say that I was sure that proof that this could not happen had already been found but then again there is the self-referencing of using a number system to prove itself. What happens if deep in the recursive nature numbers, such a fault-line occurs and technically invalidates all maths? Of course it will not matter for even if this occurs we have to look at the real world. Relativity already disproves the simple nature of movement but only for high relative speeds - all our normal movements only need simple stuff to work things out to a needlessly accurate degree - what if addition is proved to be wrong but only for high numbers? I know that addition works for any numbers you can think of but that is not proof.

You may think that this is from a random note - you are probably right.