No math 
you fail as well.
Get on your feet; it's time to do some math! you fail as well.Quotes from a brilliant mathematician, and related:
Quote from: Kurt Gödel
This blindness (or prejudice, or whatever you may call it) of logicians is indeed surprising. But I think the explanation is not hard to find. It lies in a widespread lack, at that time, of the required epistemological attitude toward metamathematics and toward non-finitary reasoning. …
[M]y objectivistic conception of mathematics and metamathematics in general, and of transfinite reasoning in particular, was fundamental also to my other work in logic.
How indeed could one think of expressing metamathematics in the mathematical systems themselves, if the latter are considered to consist of meaningless symbols which acquire some substitute of meaning only through metamathematics? [emphasis his] [8–9]
How can one expect to solve mathematical problems by mere analysis of the concepts occurring, if our analysis so far does not even suffice to set up the axioms? [110]
What I call the theological worldview is the idea that the world and everything in it has meaning and reason, and in particular a good and indubitable meaning. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence. The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science. [217]
http://kevincarmody.com/math/goedel.html[M]y objectivistic conception of mathematics and metamathematics in general, and of transfinite reasoning in particular, was fundamental also to my other work in logic.
How indeed could one think of expressing metamathematics in the mathematical systems themselves, if the latter are considered to consist of meaningless symbols which acquire some substitute of meaning only through metamathematics? [emphasis his] [8–9]
How can one expect to solve mathematical problems by mere analysis of the concepts occurring, if our analysis so far does not even suffice to set up the axioms? [110]
What I call the theological worldview is the idea that the world and everything in it has meaning and reason, and in particular a good and indubitable meaning. It follows immediately that our worldly existence, since it has in itself at most a very dubious meaning, can only be means to the end of another existence. The idea that everything in the world has a meaning [reason] is an exact analogue of the principle that everything has a cause, on which rests all of science. [217]
I don't see a single equation, axiom, definition, or proof in this quote or the website linked.
Quote
Philosophy as an exact theory should do for metaphysics as much as Newton did for physics. I think it is perfectly possible that the development of such a philosophical theory will take place within the next hundred years or even sooner [7.3.6; portion misquoted, corrected p. 288, 332]
Newtonian physics is wrong, this quote has turned out to be wrong.
Quote
I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical. [6.2.12]
Most of his musings have turned out to be false with the passage of time and advancement in the physical sciences.
Here is one the OP should take to heart.
Quote
Intuition is not proof; it is the opposite of proof. We do not analyze intuition to see a proof but by intuition we see something without a proof. [9.2.46]
And again, this page has no math whatsoever. Quotes from a mathematician, who was wrong about a great many predictions, are not math.
