Ian Stewart - Collected Quotes

"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", 1975)

"Many pages have been expended on polemics in favor of rigor over intuition, or of intuition over rigor. Both extremes miss the point: the power of mathematics lies precisely in the combination of intuition and rigor." (Ian Stewart, "Concepts of Modern Mathematics", 1975)

"A great many problems are easier to solve rigorously if you know in advance what the answer is." (Ian Stewart, "From Here to Infinity", 1987)

"Computer scientists working on algorithms for factorization would be well advised to brush up on their number theory." (Ian Stewart, "Geometry Finds Factor Fast", Nature Vol. 325, 1987) 

"Mathematics is good if it enriches the subject, if it opens up new vistas, if it solves old problems, if it fills gaps, fitting snugly and satisfyingly into what is already known, or if it forges new links between previously unconnected parts of the subject It is bad if it is trivial, overelaborate, or lacks any definable mathematical purpose or direction It is pure if its methods are pure - that is, if it doesn't cheat and tackle one problem while pretending to tackle another, and if there are no gaping holes in its logic It is applied if it leads to useful insights outside mathematics. By these criteria, today's mathematics contains as high a proportion of good work as at any other period, and as any other area, and much of it manages to be both pure and applied at the same time." (Ian Stewart, "The Problems of Mathematics", 1987)

"Symmetries abound in nature, in technology, and - especially - in the simplified mathematical models we study so assiduously. Symmetries complicate things and simplify them. They complicate them by introducing exceptional types of behavior, increasing the number of variables involved, and making vanish things that usually do not vanish. They simplify them by introducing exceptional types of behavior, increasing the number of variables involved, and making vanish things that usually do not vanish. They violate all the hypotheses of our favorite theorems, yet lead to natural generalizations of those theorems. It is now standard to study the 'generic' behavior of dynamical systems. Symmetry is not generic. The answer is to work within the world of symmetric systems and to examine a suitably restricted idea of genericity." (Ian Stewart, "Bifurcation with symmetry", 1988)

"Mathematics is a remarkable sprawling riot of imagination, ranging from pure intellectual curiosity to nuts-and-bolts utility; and it is all one thing." (Ian Stewart, "Game, Set, and Math: Enigmas and Conundrums", 1989)

"The flapping of a single butterfly’s wing today produces a tiny change in the state of the atmosphere. Over a period of time, what the atmosphere actually does diverges from what it would have done." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice?", 1989)

"[…] a symmetry isn't a thing; it's a transformation. Not any old transformation, though: a symmetry of an object is a transformation that leaves it apparently unchanged." (Ian Stewart & Martin Golubitsky, "Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer?", 1992)

"Chaos demonstrates that deterministic causes can have random effects […] There's a similar surprise regarding symmetry: symmetric causes can have asymmetric effects. […] This paradox, that symmetry can get lost between cause and effect, is called symmetry-breaking. […] From the smallest scales to the largest, many of nature's patterns are a result of broken symmetry; […]" (Ian Stewart & Martin Golubitsky, "Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer?", 1992)

"In everyday language, the words 'pattern' and 'symmetry' are used almost interchangeably, to indicate a property possessed by a regular arrangement of more-or-less identical units […]" (Ian Stewart & Martin Golubitsky, "Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer?", 1992)

"Nature behaves in ways that look mathematical, but nature is not the same as mathematics. Every mathematical model makes simplifying assumptions; its conclusions are only as valid as those assumptions." (Ian Stewart & Martin Golubitsky, "Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer?", 1992)

"Nature is never perfectly symmetric. Nature's circles always have tiny dents and bumps. There are always tiny fluctuations, such as the thermal vibration of molecules. These tiny imperfections load Nature's dice in favour of one or other of the set of possible effects that the mathematics of perfect symmetry considers to be equally possible." (Ian Stewart & Martin Golubitsky, "Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer?", 1992)

"Scientists use mathematics to build mental universes. They write down mathematical descriptions - models - that capture essential fragments of how they think the world behaves. Then they analyse their consequences. This is called 'theory'. They test their theories against observations: this is called 'experiment'. Depending on the result, they may modify the mathematical model and repeat the cycle until theory and experiment agree. Not that it's really that simple; but that's the general gist of it, the essence of the scientific method." (Ian Stewart & Martin Golubitsky, "Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer?", 1992)

"To a mathematician, an object possesses symmetry if it retains its form after some transformation. A circle, for example, looks the same after any rotation; so a mathematician says that a circle is symmetric, even though a circle is not really a pattern in the conventional sense - something made up from separate, identical bits. Indeed the mathematician generalizes, saying that any object that retains its form when rotated - such as a cylinder, a cone, or a pot thrown on a potter's wheel - has circular symmetry." (Ian Stewart & Martin Golubitsky, "Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer?", 1992)

"Symmetry is bound up in many of the deepest patterns of Nature, and nowadays it is fundamental to our scientific understanding of the universe. Conservation principles, such as those for energy or momentum, express a symmetry that (we believe) is possessed by the entire space-time continuum: the laws of physics are the same everywhere." (Ian Stewart & Martin Golubitsky, "Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer?", 1992)

"A number is a process that has long ago been thingified so thoroughly that everybody thinks of it as a thing. It is just as feasible-though less familiar to most of us-to think of an operation or a function as a thing. For example, we might talk of "square root" as if it were a thing- and I mean here not the square root of any particular number, but the function itself. In this image, the square-root function is a kind of sausage machine: you stuff a number in at one end and its square root pops out at the other." (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"At every turn, new vistas arise-an  unexpected river that must be crossed using stepping stones, a vast, tranquil lake, an impassable crevasse. The user of mathematics walks only the well-trod parts of this mathematical territory. The creator of mathematics explores its unknown mysteries, maps them, and builds roads through them to make them more easily accessible to everybody else." (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"Each of nature's patterns is a puzzle, nearly always a deep one. Mathematics is brilliant at helping us to solve puzzles. It is a more or less systematic way of digging out the rules and structures that lie behind some observed pattern or regularity, and then using those rules and structures to explain what's going on." (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"Human mind and culture have developed a formal system of thought for recognizing, classifying, and exploiting patterns. We call it mathematics. By using mathematics to organize and systematize our ideas about patterns, we have discovered a great secret: nature's patterns are not just there to be admired, they are vital clues to the rules that govern natural processes." (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"If you start with a number and form its square root, you get another number. The term for such an 'object' is function. You can think of a function as a mathematical rule that starts with a mathematical object-usually a number-and associates to it another object in a specific manner. Functions are often defined using algebraic formulas, which are just shorthand ways to explain what the rule is, but they can be defined by any convenient method. Another term with the same meaning as 'function' is transformation: the rule transforms the first object into the second. […] Operations and functions are very similar concepts. Indeed, on a suitable level of generality there is not much to distinguish them. Both of them are processes rather than things." (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"Mathematical 'things' have no existence in the real world: they are abstractions. But mathematical processes are also abstractions, so processes are no less 'things' than the "things" to which they are applied. The thingification of processes is commonplace." (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"Mathematics is not just a collection of isolated facts: it is more like a landscape; it has an inherent geography that its users and creators employ to navigate through what would otherwise be an impenetrable jungle." (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"No, nature is, in its own subtle way, simple. However, those simplicities do not present themselves to us directly. Instead, nature leaves clues for the mathematical detectives to puzzle over. It's a fascinating game, even to a spectator. And it's an absolutely irresistible one if you are a mathematical Sherlock Holmes." (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"Patterns possess utility as well as beauty. Once we have learned to recognize a background pattern, exceptions suddenly stand out." (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"Proofs knit the fabric of mathematics together, and if a single thread is weak, the entire fabric may unravel." (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"The entrepreneur's instinct is to exploit the natural world. The engineer's instinct is to change it. The scientist's instinct is to try to understand it - to work out what's really going on. The mathematician's instinct is to structure that process of understanding by seeking generalities that cut across the obvious subdivisions." (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"The image of mathematics raised by this description of its basic objects is something like a tree, rooted in numbers and branching into ever more esoteric data structures as you proceed from trunk to bough, bough to limb, limb to twig…" (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"The ingredient that knits this landscape together is proof. Proof determines the route from one fact to another. To professional mathematicians, no statement is considered valid unless it is proved beyond any possibility of logical error. But there are limits to what can be proved, and how it can be proved. A great deal of work in philosophy and the foundations of mathematics has established that you can't prove everything, because you have to start somewhere; and even when you've decided where to start, some statements may be neither provable nor disprovable." (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"[…] the meaning of the word 'solve' has undergone a series of major changes. First that word meant 'find a formula'. Then its meaning changed to 'find approximate numbers'. Finally, it has in effect become 'tell me what the solutions look like'. In place of quantitative answers, we seek qualitative ones." (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"The real numbers are one of the most audacious idealizations made by the human mind, but they were used happily for centuries before anybody worried about the logic behind them. Paradoxically, people worried a great deal about the next enlargement of the number system, even though it was entirely harmless. That was the introduction of square roots for negative numbers, and it led to the 'imaginary' and 'complex' numbers. A professional mathematican should never leave home without them […]" (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"The story of calculus brings out two of the main things that mathematics is for: providing tools that let scientists calculate what nature is doing, and providing new questions for mathematicians to sort out to their own satisfaction. These are the external and internal aspects of mathematics, often referred to as applied and pure mathematics." (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"There is much beauty in nature's clues, and we can all recognize it without any mathematical training. There is beauty, too, in the mathematical stories that start from the clues and deduce the underlying rules and regularities, but it is a different kind of beauty, applying to ideas rather than things." (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"Whatever the reasons, mathematics definitely is a useful way to think about nature. What do we want it to tell us about the patterns we observe? There are many answers. We want to understand how they happen; to understand why they happen, which is different; to organize the underlying patterns and regularities in the most satisfying way; to predict how nature will behave; to control nature for our own ends; and to make practical use of what we have learned about our world. Mathematics helps us to do all these things, and often it is indispensable." (Ian Stewart, "Nature's Numbers: The unreal reality of mathematics", 1995)

"However, random walk theory also tells us that the chance that the balance never returns to zero - that is, that H stays in the lead for ever - is 0. This is the sense in which the 'law of averages' is true. If you wait long enough, then almost surely the numbers of heads and tails will even out. But this fact carries no implications about improving your chances of winning, if you're betting on whether H or T turns up. The probabilities are unchanged, and you don't know how long the 'long run' is going to be. Usually it is very long indeed." (Ian Stewart, The Magical Maze: Seeing the world through mathematical eyes", 1997)

"In fact, mathematics is the closest that we humans get to true magic. How else to describe the patterns in our heads that - by some mysterious agency - capture patterns of the universe around us?" (Ian Stewart, "The Magical Maze: Seeing the World Through Mathematical Eyes", 1997)

"The basis of many misconceptions about probability is a belief in something usually referred to as 'the law of averages', which alleges that any unevenness in random events gets ironed out in the long run. For example, if a tossed coin keeps coming up heads, then it is widely believed that at some stage there will be a predominance of tails to balance things out." (Ian Stewart, The Magical Maze: Seeing the world through mathematical eyes", 1997)

"The 'law of averages' asserts itself not by removing imbalances, but by swamping them. Random walk theory tells us that if you wait long enough - on average, infinitely long - then eventually the numbers will balance out. If you stop at that very instant, then you may imagine that your intuition about a 'law of averages' is justified. But you're cheating: you stopped when you got the answer you wanted. Random walk theory also tells us that if you carry on for long enough, you will reach a situation where the number of H's is a billion more than the number of T's." (Ian Stewart, The Magical Maze: Seeing the world through mathematical eyes", 1997)

"[...] an apparently random universe could be obeying every whim of a deterministic deity who chooses how the dice roll; a universe that has obeyed perfect mathematical laws for the last ten billion years could suddenly start to play truly random dice. So the distinction is about how we model the system, and what point of view seems most useful, rather than about any inherent feature of the system itself." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"Chaos teaches us that anybody, God or cat, can play dice deterministically, while the naïve onlooker imagines that something random is going on." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"If sinks, sources, saddles, and limit cycles are coins landing heads or tails, then the exceptions are a coin landing on edge. Yes, it might happen, in theory; but no, it doesn't, in practice." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"In contrast, the system may be a pack of cards, and the dynamic may be to shuffle the pack and then take the top card. Imagine that the current top card is the ace of spades, and that after shuffling the pack the top card becomes the seven of diamonds. Does that imply that whenever the top card is the ace of spades then the next top card will always be the seven of diamonds? Of course not. So this system is random." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"In modelling terms, the difference between randomness and determinacy is clear enough. The randomness in the pack of cards arises from our failure to prescribe unique rules for getting from the current state to the next one. There are lots of different ways to shuffle a pack. The determinism of the cannonball is a combination of two things: fully prescribed rules of behaviour, and fully defined initial conditions. Notice that in both systems we are thinking on a very short timescale: it is the next state that matters - or, if time is flowing continuously, it is the state a tiny instant into the future. We don't need to consider long-term behaviour to distinguish randomness from determinacy." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"Indeed a deterministic die behaves very much as if it has six attractors, the steady states corresponding to its six faces, all of whose basins are intertwined. For technical reasons that can't quite be true, but it is true that deterministic systems with intertwined basins are wonderful substitutes for dice; in fact they're super-dice, behaving even more ‘randomly’ - apparently - than ordinary dice. Super-dice are so chaotic that they are uncomputable. Even if you know the equations for the system perfectly, then given an initial state, you cannot calculate which attractor it will end up on. The tiniest error of approximation – and there will always be such an error - will change the answer completely." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"It's a bit like having a theory about coins that move in space, but only being able to measure their state by interrupting them with a table. We hypothesize that the coin may be able to revolve in space, a state that is neither ‘heads’ nor ‘tails’ but a kind of mixture. Our experimental proof is that when you stick a table in, you get heads half the time and tails the other half - randomly. This is by no means a perfect analogy with standard quantum theory - a revolving coin is not exactly in a superposition of heads and tails - but it captures some of the flavour." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"Perhaps God can play dice, and create a universe of complete law and order, in the same breath." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"The chance events due to deterministic chaos, on the other hand, occur even within a closed system determined by immutable laws. Our most cherished examples of chance - dice, roulette, coin-tossing – seem closer to chaos than to the whims of outside events. So, in this revised sense, dice are a good metaphor for chance after all. It's just that we've refined our concept of randomness. Indeed, the deterministic but possibly chaotic stripes of phase space may be the true source of probability." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"The randomness of the card-shuffle is of course caused by our lack of knowledge of the precise procedure used to shuffle the cards. But that is outside the chosen system, so in our practical sense it is not admissible. If we were to change the system to include information about the shuffling rule – for example, that it is given by some particular computer code for pseudo-random numbers, starting with a given ‘seed value’ – then the system would look deterministic. Two computers of the same make running the same ‘random shuffle’ program would actually produce the identical sequence of top cards." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"A mathematical circle, then, is something more than a shared delusion. It is a concept endowed with extremely specific features; it 'exists' in the sense that human minds can deduce other properties from those features, with the crucial caveat that if two minds investigate the same question, they cannot, by correct reasoning, come up with contradictory answers." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"A proof provides a cast-iron guarantee that some idea is correct. No amount of experimental evidence can substitute for that." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"As caricatured by applied mathematicians, pure math is abstract ivory-tower intellectual nonsense with no practical implications. Applied math, respond the pure-math diehards, is intellectually sloppy, lacks rigor, and substitutes number crunching for understanding. Like all good caricatures, both statements contain grains of truth, but you should not take them literally."  (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"By 'network' I mean a set of dynamical systems that are 'coupled together', with some influencing the behavior of others. The systems themselves are the nodes of the network- think of them as blobs - and two nodes are joined by an arrow if one of them (at the tail end) influences the other (at the head end). For example, each node might be a nerve cell in some organism, and the arrows might be connections along which signals pass from one cell to another." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"Definitions pin things down, they limit the prospects for creativity and diversity. A definition, implicitly, attempts to reduce all possible variations of a concept to a single pithy phrase." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

 "Even when it comes to something as simple as counting, we mathematicians see the world differently from other folk." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"Like many mathematicians, I get my inspiration from nature. Nature may not look very mathematical; you don't see sums written on the trees. But math is not about sums, not really. It's about patterns and why they occur. Nature's patterns are both beautiful and inexhaustible." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"Math is actually very important, but because it genuinely is difficult, nearly all of the teaching slots are occupied with making sure that students learn how to solve certain types of problem and get the answers right. There isn't time to tell them about the history of the subject, about its connections with our culture and society, about the huge quantity of new mathematics that is created every year, or about the unsolved questions, big and little, that litter the mathematical landscape." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"Mathematical facts fit together and lead, via logic, to new facts. A deduction is only as strong as its weakest link. To be safe, all weak links must be removed." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"Mathematicians do not spend most of their time doing numerical calculations, even though calculations are sometimes essential to making progress. They do not Letters to a Young Mathematician occupy themselves with grinding out symbolic formulas, but formulas can nonetheless be indispensable." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"Mathematicians need proofs to keep them honest. All technical areas of human activity need reality checks. It is not enough to believe that something works, that it is a good way to proceed, or even that it is true. We need to know why it's true. Otherwise, we don't know anything at all." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"Nature is always deeper, richer, and more interesting than you thought, and mathematics gives you a very powerful way to appreciate this." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"Now let me explain a wonderful thing: the more mathematics you learn, the more opportunities you will find for asking new questions. As our knowledge of mathematics grows, so do the opportunities for fresh discoveries. This may sound unlikely, but it is a natural consequence of how new mathematical ideas build on older ones." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"Once you understand a problem, many aspects of it suddenly become much simpler. As mathematicians the world over say, everything is either impossible or trivial." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"Physicists use mathematics to study what they amusingly call the real world. It is real, in a sense, but much of physics addresses rather artificial aspects of reality, such as a lone electron or a solar system with only one planet. Physicists are often scathing about proofs, partly out of fear, but also because experiment gives them a very effective way to check their assumptions and calculations." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"Sometimes in math the best way to make progress is to introduce simplifications [...]. The simplifications are not assertions about the outside world: they are ways to restrict the domain of discourse, to keep it manageable." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"The further we push out the boundaries of mathematics, the bigger the boundary itself becomes. There is no danger that we will ever run out of new problems to solve." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"The mathematician's circle, with its infinitely thin circumference and a radius that remains constant to infinitely many decimal places, cannot take physical form. If you draw it in sand, as Archimedes did, its boundary is too thick and its radius too variable." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"Then there's the inner beauty of mathematics, which should not be underrated. Math done 'for its own sake' can be exquisitely beautiful and elegant. Not the 'sums' we all do at school; as individuals those are mostly ugly and formless, although the general principles that govern them have their own kind of beauty. It's the ideas, the generalities, the sudden flashes of insight, the realization that trying to trisect an angle with straightedge and compass is like trying to prove that 3 is an even number, that it makes perfect sense that you can't construct a regular seven-sided polygon but you can construct one with seventeen sides, that there is no way to untie an overhand knot, and why some infinities are bigger than others whereas some that ought to be bigger are actually equal [...]" (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"What is mathematics? It is the shared social construct created by people who are aware of certain opportunities, and we call those people mathematicians. The logic is still slightly circular, but mathematicians can always recognize a fellow spirit. Find out what that fellow spirit does; it will be one more aspect of our shared social construct." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"When you are doing math, it feels as though what you are working on is real. You can almost pick things up and turn them around, squash them and stroke them and pull them to pieces. On the other hand, you often make progress by forgetting what it all means and focusing solely on how the symbols dance." (Ian Stewart, "Letters to a Young Mathematician", 2006)

"Equations are the mathematician's way of working out the value of some unknown quantity from circumstantial evidence. ‘Here are some known facts about an unknown number: deduce the number.’ An equation, then, is a kind of puzzle, centered upon a number. We are not told what this number is, but we are told something useful about it. Our task is to solve the puzzle by finding the unknown number." (Ian Stewart, "Why Beauty Is Truth", 2007)

"The complex numbers extend the real numbers by throwing in a new kind of number, the square root of minus one. But the price we pay for being able to take square roots of negative numbers is the loss of order. The complex numbers are a complete system but are spread out across a plane rather than aligned in a single orderly sequence." (Ian Stewart, "Why Beauty Is Truth", 2007)

"When you get to know them, equations are actually rather friendly. They are clear, concise, sometimes even beautiful. The secret truth about equations is that they are a simple, clear language for describing certain ‘recipes’ for calculating things." (Ian Stewart, "Why Beauty Is Truth", 2007)

"A complex number is just a pair of real numbers, manipulated according to a short list of simple rules. Since a pair of real numbers is surely just as ‘real’ as a single real number, real and complex numbers are equally closely related to reality, and ‘imaginary’ is misleading." (Ian Stewart, "Why Beauty Is Truth", 2007)

"Equations have hidden powers. They reveal the innermost secrets of nature. […] The power of equations lies in the philosophically difficult correspondence between mathematics, a collective creation of human minds, and an external physical reality. Equations model deep patterns in the outside world. By learning to value equations, and to read the stories they tell, we can uncover vital features of the world around us." (Ian Stewart, "In Pursuit of the Unknown", 2012)

 

"There are two kinds of equations in mathematics, which on the surface look very similar. One kind presents relations between various mathematical quantities: the task is to prove the equation is true. The other kind provides information about an unknown quantity, and the mathematician’s task is to solve it - to make the unknown known." (Ian Stewart, "In Pursuit of the Unknown", 2012)

"A symmetry of some mathematical structure is a transformation of that structure, of a specified kind, that leaves specified properties of the structure unchanged." (Ian Stewart, "Symmetry: A Very Short Introduction", 2013)

"In a loose analogy, every finite symmetry group can be broken up, in a well-defined manner, into ‘indivisible’ symmetry groups - atoms of symmetry, so to speak. These basic building blocks for finite groups are known as simple groups - not because anything about them is easy, but in the sense of ‘not made up from several parts’. Just as atoms can be combined to build molecules, so these simple groups can be combined to build all finite groups." (Ian Stewart, "Symmetry: A Very Short Introduction", 2013)

"Mathematical intuition is the mind’s ability to sense form and structure, to detect patterns that we cannot consciously perceive. Intuition lacks the crystal clarity of conscious logic, but it makes up for that by drawing attention to things we would never have consciously considered." (Ian Stewart, "Visions of Infinity", 2013)

"Mathematical symmetry is an idealized model. However, slightly imperfect symmetry requires explanation; it’s not enough just to say ‘it’s asymmetric’."(Ian Stewart, "Symmetry: A Very Short Introduction", 2013)

"Often the key contribution of intuition is to make us aware of weak points in a problem, places where it may be vulnerable to attack. A mathematical proof is like a battle, or if you prefer a less warlike metaphor, a game of chess. Once a potential weak point has been identified, the mathematician’s technical grasp of the machinery of mathematics can be brought to bear to exploit it." (Ian Stewart, "Visions of Infinity", 2013)

"Proof, in fact, is the requirement that makes great problems problematic. Anyone moderately competent can carry out a few calculations, spot an apparent pattern, and distil its essence into a pithy statement. Mathematicians demand more evidence than that: they insist on a complete, logically impeccable proof. Or, if the answer turns out to be negative, a disproof. It isn’t really possible to appreciate the seductive allure of a great problem without appreciating the vital role of proof in the mathematical enterprise. Anyone can make an educated guess. What’s hard is to prove it’s right. Or wrong." (Ian Stewart, "Visions of Infinity", 2013)

"The group of transformations of space-time that fixes the origin and leaves the interval invariant is called the Lorentz group after the physicist Hendrik Lorentz. The Lorentz group specifies how relative motion works in relativity, and is responsible for the theory’s counterintuitive features in which objects shrink, time slows down, and mass increases, as a body nears the speed of light."(Ian Stewart, "Symmetry: A Very Short Introduction", 2013)

"[…] the symmetry group of the infinite logarithmic spiral is an infinite group, with one element for each real number . Two such transformations compose by adding the corresponding angles, so this group is isomorphic to the real numbers under addition." (Ian Stewart, "Symmetry: A Very Short Introduction", 2013)

"We can find the minimax strategy by exploiting the game’s symmetry. Roughly speaking, the minimax strategy must have the same kind of symmetry." (Ian Stewart, "Symmetry: A Very Short Introduction", 2013)

"A mathematical concept, then, is an organised pattern of ideas that are somehow interrelated, drawing on the experience of concepts already established. Psychologists call such an organised pattern of ideas a ‘schema’." (Ian Stewart & David Tall, "The Foundations of Mathematics" 2nd Ed., 2015)

"Although it is certainly possible to build up the whole of mathematics by axiomatic methods starting from the empty set, using no outside information whatsoever, it is also totally unintelligible to anyone who does not already understand the mathematics being built up." (Ian Stewart & David Tall, "The Foundations of Mathematics" 2nd Ed., 2015)

"Complex numbers do not fit readily into many people’s schema for ‘number’, and students often reject the concept when it is first presented. Modern mathematicians look at the situation with the aid of an enlarged schema in which the facts make sense." (Ian Stewart & David Tall, "The Foundations of Mathematics" 2nd Ed., 2015)

"It is not that the human mind cannot think logically. It is a question of different kinds of understanding. One kind of understanding is the logical, step-by-step way of understanding a formal mathematical proof. Each individual step can be checked but this may give no idea how they fit together, of the broad sweep of the proof, of the reasons that lead to it being thought of in the first place. Another kind of understanding arises by developing a global viewpoint, from which we can comprehend the entire argument at a glance. This involves fitting the ideas concerned into the overall pattern of mathematics, and linking them to similar ideas from other areas." (Ian Stewart & David Tall, "The Foundations of Mathematics" 2nd Ed., 2015)

"The essential quality of mathematics that binds it together in a coherent way is the use of mathematical proof to deduce new results from known ones, building up a strong and consistent theory." (Ian Stewart & David Tall, "The Foundations of Mathematics" 2nd Ed., 2015)

"The human mind builds up theories by recognising familiar patterns and glossing over details that are well understood, so that it can concentrate on the new material. In fact it is limited by the amount of new information it can hold at any one time, and the suppression of familiar detail is often essential for a grasp of the total picture. In a written proof, the step-by-step logical deduction is therefore foreshortened where it is already a part of the reader’s basic technique, so that they can comprehend the overall structure more easily." (Ian Stewart & David Tall, "The Foundations of Mathematics" 2nd Ed., 2015)

"When we extend the system of natural numbers and counting to embrace infinite cardinals, the larger system need not have all of the properties of the smaller one. However, familiarity with the smaller system leads us to expect certain properties, and we can become confused when the pieces don’t seem to fit. Insecurity arose when the square of a complex number violated the real number principle that all squares are positive. This was resolved when we realised that the complex numbers cannot be ordered in the same way as their subset of reals." (Ian Stewart & David Tall, "The Foundations of Mathematics" 2nd Ed., 2015)