This thread covers topics that are of interest to me, so I've been following it for a while, but you are missing the point so badly here that I now feel compelled to comment. You really, truly, have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Here are four of the most egregious examples.

1. You said, and I quote you directly, "Coding is not math."

As sribe has already patiently tried to explain to you (in vain, apparently), that statement is completely, demonstrably false. There is an entire branch of pure mathematics devoted to computation and computability, and it includes formalisms that encompass all programming languages and the statements that can be written in them. Your ignorance of this, and whether you choose to accept it, does not matter -- it is an objective fact.

2. Your grasp on this subject is so weak you don't understand that you made a really poor strawman argument, even though sribe pointed it out to you. You said,

Your claim of strawman is not based in any reasoned argument. Is this how they taught you to make an argument in "university"?

No, sribe explained it perfectly well, regardless of whether you were unable to understand. I'll try to explain it for you again. You claimed that if the lambda calculus means that a programming language is math, than any language must be math, which is false, so it must also be false that programming languages are math. Specifically, you said, "By this reasoning any language is math", and, "You conflating math with language and thus equating all languages to each other." That was the strawman argument that you made. Do you get it now? Besides being a strawman argument, claiming that the lambda calculus means all human languages are math is so bone-headedly stupid that it hardly deserves further rebuttal, so let me just say this: No, it doesn't. Not even close. Again, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Please, learn something about this topic before you embarrass yourself again.

3. Then, there is this comment you made earlier:

No it isn't. If I turned in a sheet of lamda calculus code in response to a test question on a math exam, I would get a ZERO.

You are claiming that the lambda calculus is not math? Seriously? Or what did you mean by "a math exam"? Again, this comment displays such complete ignorance of the subject that I am almost embarrassed for you.

4. Finally, you keep claiming that math is just a subset of logic, but you contradicted this all by yourself *in your very first post*, where you said:

anything which is logical should representable as math

If anything in logic can be represented as math, than logic must either be a subset of math or equivalent to it.

You know, it's okay just to admit you were wrong about something. There is nothing wrong with being curious but uninformed, and graciously accepting help when people try to provide it for you. That looks far better than digging in, trying to defend an ignorant viewpoint, and making yourself look even more ignorant in the process.