Pieniążek has made a compelling criticism of some of Austrian critique directed at using mathematics in economic science. He has not managed, however, to draw a conclusion about general not-usefulness of Austrian economics as an alternative paradigm. Much like Austrians seem to be mistaken in some aspects about general criticism of mathematical tools, so Pieniążek seems to be mistaken on his general criticism of the Austrian School. To use his own words, his criticism is non-essential. Some Austrians use failed archetypes of mathematical economics. Pieniążek seems to have his unfitting archetype of the Austrian economics. As my later considerations on mathematics in economics reflect - I have doubts it is possible to make any general arguments about the usefulness or non-usefulness of mathematics in economics. Every particular tool deserves its own assessment much like every theorem does. Especially since we cannot be sure what mathematics (in general) really is. (fragment of text)