logic > discovered (two-state systems are as old as night and day)
physics > invented as a description of the natural universe
biology > invented as a description of the natural universe
language > invented to map labels to concepts
Most of the other questions about "is" etc are subsumed under language.
Math is different from these in the sense that it has an independent existence about it. Math is so abstract that it doesn't need anything real to exist. You can't be, say, a biologist without something biological. You measure animals from nose to tail or look at plants, but biology wouldn't exist otherwise. Same for physics. Without things taking up space, having mass, and moving, physics wouldn't exist. Math, though, could exist per se without anything else.
Math is understood by people because we have a facility (which some like Kant and Plato think is innate; others like Locke and Hume don't seem to think so) to think abstractly. An animal might be taught to do math on some level, but they do not have the ability to abstract from this and come up with, say, commutative rings. Only people can do this, which connects people to an abstract world. (Which may or may not exist depending on how Platonic your concept of ontology is.)
That's what makes the question so fascinating with regard to math, and why it is so hard to answer. We both apply math to everyday life, making it a descriptive thing that depends on what exists to be useful, but we also abstract our math into structures which don't actually exist in the physical world. (Other than the tesseract I made out of toothpicks in junior high. I'm working on a paper mache commutative ring next. After that, I may do a non-commutative one.)