> In mathematics, the fact that there is no absolute truth is merely a technical fact.
What? No, it's not. Your attempt to justify this with the statement that "arithmetic truth cannot be defined in arithmetic" fails, because that's not the same thing as a there being "no absolute truth" in mathematics.
> because that's not the same thing as a there being "no absolute truth" in mathematics.
what else is this going to mean? "absolute truth" in mathematics should be a mathematical concept. Is that not the definition of "in mathematics"? I don't think you should accuse me of moving the goalposts when they aren't clearly... posted.
"Absolute truth" has nothing to do with a mathematical definition of truth. Simple English Wikipedia [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_truth] even lists several mathematical truths as examples of absolute truths:
> For example, there are no round squares. There are also no square circles. The angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees.
What? No, it's not. Your attempt to justify this with the statement that "arithmetic truth cannot be defined in arithmetic" fails, because that's not the same thing as a there being "no absolute truth" in mathematics.