"A distinctive feature of mathematics, that feature in virtue of which it stands as a paradigmatically rational discipline, is that assertions are not accepted without proof. […] By proof is meant a deductively valid, rationally compelling argument which shows why this must be so, given what it is to be a triangle. But arguments always have premises so that if there are to be any proofs there must also be starting points, premises which are agreed to be necessarily true, self-evident, neither capable of, nor standing in need of, further justification. The conception of mathematics as a discipline in which proofs are required must therefore also be a conception of a discipline in which a systematic and hierarchical order is imposed on its various branches. Some propositions appear as first principles, accepted without proof, and others are ordered on the basis of how directly they can be proved from these first principle. Basic theorems, once proved, are then used to prove further results, and so on. Thus there is a sense in which, so long as mathematicians demand and provide proofs, they must necessarily organize their discipline along lines approximating to the pattern to be found in Euclid's Elements." (Mary Tiles, "Mathematics and the Image of Reason", 1991)
"[...] there is no criterion for appreciation which does not vary from one epoch to another and from one mathematician to another. [...] These divergences in taste recall the quarrels aroused by works of art, and it is a fact that mathematicians often discuss among themselves whether a theorem is more or less 'beautiful'. This never fails to surprise practitioners of other sciences: for them the sole criterion is the 'truth' of a theory or formula." (Jean Dieudonné, "Mathematics – The Music of Reason", 1992)
"An intuitive proof allows you to understand why the theorem must be true; the logic merely provides firm grounds to show that it is true." (Ian Stewart, "Concepts of Modern Mathematics", 1995)
"Mathematics is about theorems: how to find them; how to prove them; how to generalize them; how to use them; how to understand them. […] But great theorems do not stand in isolation; they lead to great theories. […] And great theories in mathematics are like great poems, great paintings, or great literature: it takes time for them to mature and be recognized as being 'great'." (John L Casti, "Five Golden Rules", 1995)
"To be an engineer, and build a marvelous machine, and to see the beauty of its operation is as valid an experience of beauty as a mathematician's absorption in a wondrous theorem. One is not ‘more’ beautiful than the other. To see a space shuttle standing on the launch pad, the vented gases escaping, and witness the thunderous blast-off as it climbs heavenward on a pillar of flame - this is beauty. Yet it is a prime example of applied mathematics.” (Calvin C Clawson, “Mathematical Mysteries”, 1996)
"To be an engineer, and build a marvelous machine, and to see the beauty of its operation is as valid an experience of beauty as a mathematician's absorption in a wondrous theorem. One is not ‘more’ beautiful than the other. To see a space shuttle standing on the launch pad, the vented gases escaping, and witness the thunderous blast-off as it climbs heavenward on a pillar of flame - this is beauty. Yet it is a prime example of applied mathematics.” (Calvin C Clawson, “Mathematical Mysteries”, 1996)
"The lack of beauty in a piece of mathematics is of frequent occurrence, and it is a strong motivation for further mathematical research. Lack of beauty is associated with lack of definitiveness. A beautiful proof is more often than not the definitive proof (though a definitive proof need not be beautiful); a beautiful theorem is not likely to be improved upon or generalized." (Gian-Carlo Rota, "The phenomenology of mathematical proof", Synthese, 111(2), 1997)
"The most common instance of beauty in mathematics is a brilliant step in an otherwise undistinguished proof. […] A beautiful theorem may not be blessed with an equally beautiful proof; beautiful theorems with ugly proofs frequently occur. When a beautiful theorem is missing a beautiful proof, attempts are made by mathematicians to provide new proofs that will match the beauty of the theorem, with varying success. It is, however, impossible to find beautiful proofs of theorems that are not beautiful." (Gian-Carlo Rota, "The Phenomenology of Mathematical Beauty", 1997)
"Mathematical truth is found to exceed the proving of theorems and to elude total capture in the confining meshes of any logical net." (John Polkinghorne, "Belief in God in an Age of Science", 1998)
"A mathematician experiments, amasses information, makes a conjecture, finds out that it does not work, gets confused and then tries to recover. A good mathematician eventually does so – and proves a theorem." (Steven Krantz, "Conformal Mappings", American Scientist, Sept.–Oct. 1999)
"Let us regard a proof of an assertion as a purely mechanical procedure using precise rules of inference starting with a few unassailable axioms. This means that an algorithm can be devised for testing the validity of an alleged proof simply by checking the successive steps of the argument; the rules of inference constitute an algorithm for generating all the statements that can be deduced in a finite number of steps from the axioms." (Edward Beltrami, "What is Random?: Chaos and Order in Mathematics and Life", 1999)
"Mathematicians, like the rest of us, cherish clever ideas; in particular they delight in an ingenious picture. But this appreciation does not overwhelm a prevailing skepticism. After all, a diagram is - at best - just a special case and so can't establish a general theorem. Even worse, it can be downright misleading. Though not universal, the prevailing attitude is that pictures are really no more than heuristic devices; they are psychologically suggestive and pedagogically important - but they prove nothing. I want to oppose this view and to make a case for pictures having a legitimate role to play as evidence and justification - a role well beyond the heuristic. In short, pictures can prove theorems." (James R Brown, "Philosophy of Mathematics: An Introduction to the World of Proofs and Pictures, 1999)
See also:
Theorems I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, X
Proofs I, II, III, IV, V,. VI, VII, VIII, IX
"The most common instance of beauty in mathematics is a brilliant step in an otherwise undistinguished proof. […] A beautiful theorem may not be blessed with an equally beautiful proof; beautiful theorems with ugly proofs frequently occur. When a beautiful theorem is missing a beautiful proof, attempts are made by mathematicians to provide new proofs that will match the beauty of the theorem, with varying success. It is, however, impossible to find beautiful proofs of theorems that are not beautiful." (Gian-Carlo Rota, "The Phenomenology of Mathematical Beauty", 1997)
"Mathematical truth is found to exceed the proving of theorems and to elude total capture in the confining meshes of any logical net." (John Polkinghorne, "Belief in God in an Age of Science", 1998)
"A mathematician experiments, amasses information, makes a conjecture, finds out that it does not work, gets confused and then tries to recover. A good mathematician eventually does so – and proves a theorem." (Steven Krantz, "Conformal Mappings", American Scientist, Sept.–Oct. 1999)
"Let us regard a proof of an assertion as a purely mechanical procedure using precise rules of inference starting with a few unassailable axioms. This means that an algorithm can be devised for testing the validity of an alleged proof simply by checking the successive steps of the argument; the rules of inference constitute an algorithm for generating all the statements that can be deduced in a finite number of steps from the axioms." (Edward Beltrami, "What is Random?: Chaos and Order in Mathematics and Life", 1999)
"Mathematicians, like the rest of us, cherish clever ideas; in particular they delight in an ingenious picture. But this appreciation does not overwhelm a prevailing skepticism. After all, a diagram is - at best - just a special case and so can't establish a general theorem. Even worse, it can be downright misleading. Though not universal, the prevailing attitude is that pictures are really no more than heuristic devices; they are psychologically suggestive and pedagogically important - but they prove nothing. I want to oppose this view and to make a case for pictures having a legitimate role to play as evidence and justification - a role well beyond the heuristic. In short, pictures can prove theorems." (James R Brown, "Philosophy of Mathematics: An Introduction to the World of Proofs and Pictures, 1999)
See also:
Theorems I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, X
Proofs I, II, III, IV, V,. VI, VII, VIII, IX
No comments:
Post a Comment