In maths, you can use something as simple as statistical analysis to intuit the theory, and in comp-science you can use simulators.
Is the above statement true for maths ?
If I'm understanding the question correctly, I suppose the OP is aiming to posit that in mathematics we verify a mathematical truth in nature by experimentation and statistical data analysis versus how we verify a computational truth by seeing it in practice through simulations.
Not to be overly pedantic, but to me a mathematical or computational result is true when it is the conclusion of a rigorous application of sound thought through a sequence of logical steps from an initial set of assumptions within a particular (logical) framework. I see no distinction between mathematical or computational truths.
In practice, however, when we try to apply mathematical or computational rules to nature, the results aren't always so easy to interpret, because truth isn't well-defined. This is why statistics is so applicable -- it gives us a way to quantify the grey area. Through simulations we can test ideas in an ideal setting, so the grey area is as big as we allow it to be.