Mathematical objects are typically considered to be abstract entities that do not exist in the physical world.

Platonism is the philosophical position that holds that mathematical objects exist independently of the human mind and are discovered rather than invented.

Formalism is the philosophical position that holds that mathematical objects are mental constructions that are defined by axioms and rules.

Conventionalism is the philosophical position that holds that mathematical objects are social conventions that are created by humans for the purpose of communication and problem-solving.

Constructivism is the philosophical position that holds that mathematical objects are constructed by the human mind through a process of abstraction and generalization.

The argument from mathematical certainty is not a common argument for the existence of mathematical objects, as it is based on the assumption that mathematical objects exist in order to explain their certainty.

The argument from mathematical beauty claims that the beauty of mathematics is evidence for the existence of mathematical objects, as it is difficult to explain why something that does not exist would be beautiful.

The argument from mathematical necessity claims that the necessity of mathematics is evidence for the existence of mathematical objects, as it is difficult to explain why something that is not necessary would be necessary.

The argument from mathematical applicability claims that the applicability of mathematics is evidence for the existence of mathematical objects, as it is difficult to explain how something that does not exist could be applied to the real world.

The objection from vagueness is not a common objection to the existence of mathematical objects, as it is based on the assumption that mathematical objects are vague, which is not necessarily the case.

The objection from circularity claims that the definitions of mathematical objects are circular, as they rely on other mathematical objects that are defined in terms of the first object.

The objection from vagueness claims that mathematical objects are vague, as they cannot be precisely defined.

The objection from inconsistency claims that mathematical objects are inconsistent, as there are different mathematical systems that are inconsistent with each other.

The objection from incompleteness claims that mathematics is incomplete, as there are mathematical statements that cannot be proven or disproven within a given mathematical system.

The response from necessity is not a common response to the objections to the existence of mathematical objects, as it is based on the assumption that mathematical objects are necessary, which is not necessarily the case.

The response from abstraction claims that mathematical objects are abstractions from the physical world, as they are derived from the properties of physical objects.

The response from idealization claims that mathematical objects are idealizations of the physical world, as they are simplified versions of physical objects that ignore their imperfections.

The response from convention claims that mathematical objects are conventions that are created by humans for the purpose of communication and problem-solving.