For at least century, mathematics has been fertile source of arguments against nominalism. Among such arguments, arguments that are based on applied mathematics have at least one important advantage over arguments based on pure mathematics. Nominalists, upon being convinced that Banach-Tarski Theorem-which has no conceivable application to physical world-was inconsistent with nominalism, might well be willing to say, So much worse for Banach-Tarski Theorem. But few nominalists would be willing simply to toss NonLinear Partial Differential Equations for Scientists and Engineers (by Professor Lokenath Debnath; a very hard act to follow, according to one reviewer) into fire. It would be heroic nominalist indeed who was willing to dismiss that book-or any of thousands of other books of similar nature-with words, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? Yes. Commit it then to flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.In my view, arguments from applied mathematics are particularly difficult for fictionalist nominalists to deal with.1 In section 1, I will present an argument based on applied mathematics against nominalism simpliciter. (The argument is coextensive with section. Although I in fact accept argument, Section 1 is no more than presentation or statement of argument, and none of declarative sentences it contains should be taken to be an assertion of author's.) In section 2, I will present modification of argument of section 1 that is directed specifically against fictionalist nominalism. In section 3,1 will consider reply to argument of section 2 that is based on common fictionalist contention that the mathematical fiction can be shown to be conservative extension of nominalistically acceptable discourse.1. An Argument for Rejecting NominalismLet us consider simple problem whose solution requires an application of mathematics to physical world.2 We suppose that Alice wishes to find number of cans (cylindrical cans, each with dimensions of sample can she has in her possession) of Sherwin-Williams Porch and Floor Enamel (her favorite floor paint) needed to paint floor of Mary Lou Beasley Reading Room-a rectangular room, length of whose sides she is in position to measure-given that one needs 0.02 cubic units of this paint to cover surface whose area is 100 square units. (Units are units of linear measure: meters, centimeters, nanometers, inches, leagues, parsecs.) This simple problem, as befits simple problem, is easily solved. To solve it, Alice need only apply following general principle to floor of Beasley Room:1.1 The rectangular-surface/paint-can numerical requirement principleNRP For any rectangular surface R and any numbers3, x, y, z, and w: if x and y lengths of two adjacent sides of R in Ls, and if z measures height of can of paint4 in Ls and w measures its diameter in Ls, then number of cans of paint that are needed to paint R is5 0.00025 (xy/w2z).Note that NRP has been presented in form of schema. Instances of this schema are obtained by replacing each occurrence therein of dummy symbol 'Ls' with (the same) plural expression signifying unit of linear measure (ULM). Examples of ULMs are: 'meter', 'inch', 'league', 'nanometer', 'terrestrial polar diameter', 'cubit', and 'astronomical unit'. Thus, one instance of NRP will contain phrase '. . . ifx and y lengths of two adjacent sides of R in meters, and if z measures height of can of paint in meters . . ,'.6To accept or assent to NRP (or any schema) is to accept or assent to ('to commit oneself to accepting'? 'to be prepared to assent to'?) all its instances.Alice need only apply NRP to case at hand-yes. But in order to apply NRP to case at hand, she will first have to know of two numbers that they lengths of two adjacent sides of floor of Beasley Room in meters (or in nanometers or in parsecs . …