Spot on. He's correct in that math is absolute in its precision, but it's still no more than an abstraction of what's actually going on. More importantly, our cognition is simply not good enough to intuitively comprehend a mathematical description of a highly complex entity or process. Like, it's totally possible to describe a table in purely mathematical terms, but even if you manage to compute that, good luck trying to convey it to other people without using language as a crutch.

And to take it a step further, our ability to use symantic languages is actually one of the main reasons why we're so good at maths. We wouldn't be able to handle anything more than basic algebra and geometry etc. if not for the fact that languages allow us to abstract complex concepts into very simple symbols. Remember that we developed written languages long before we ever considered using algebraic expressions as a mathematical notation. For the longest time, mathematicians relied almost entirely on geometry and vectors to describe mathematics, with a bit of help from symantic languages.