[UserNameGoesHere]

Again, one must distinguish between mathematics and approaches to mathematics, such as mathematical representation, including notation. The intrinsic mathematics itself is pre-existing. Things have height, width, weight, and other mathematical properties, independent of human perception. Further, the mathematical relationships between things are also pre-existing. This sort of mathematical order of the universe pre-exists. What humans do is try to understand this via representation or notation or via different approaches -- the approaches themselves which may be creative, but the underlying mathematics pre-exists and is discovered rather than created.

It's a fine point, but it's basically the difference between the symbols and notations that we use (which are invented), and the underlying mathematics itself (which pre-exists independently of humans). Certainly looking at a problem in various ways is creative, although the problem itself (the intrinsic mathematics) pre-exists. It is entirely possible and in fact likely for human understanding of mathematics to be lacking -- however the underlying mathematics is perfect and pre-existing -- it exists whether we understand or comprehend all of it or not as it is essentially the "rules of the universe", quite literally.

You mention being able to understand concepts so that you could apply your own ideas being a creative task. That may be, but I would argue this cannot apply to computers because they cannot understand concepts nor do they have ideas. So while the end result may be similar, if there is no intention behind it, it cannot be creative. And since a computer has no intention (it blindly obeys without understanding or meaning), how can it possibly be creative?

Now, the person who made the program could be creative. The people who made the art it learned from could be creative. The program itself could not be. That is my thinking.