[kamaal]

>>In theory maths should be able to be broken down to its basic components and be proven to be all true, or if something is false, then the whole thing collapses.

>>But in practice things like this become so complex that it becomes a matter of conviction, influenced by things like ego.

Isn't this like doing a bunch of AND , OR operations?

How does ego become a factor here? Either an expression evaluates to true or false. There are only two outcomes, why is there a confusion here.

[bubblyworld]

That's true, but in practice mathematicians rarely check a proof to that level of detail. In fact, they rarely write a proof at that level of detail. There just isn't enough time to do that for every result/review, so people take shortcuts. Most of the time it's fine because trained mathematicians take good shortcuts, but sometimes things slip through.