"It is sometimes said that mathematics is not an experimental subject. This is not true! Mathematicians often use the evidence of lots of examples to help form a conjecture, and this is an experimental approach. Having formed a conjecture about what might be true, the next task is to try to prove it." (George M Phillips,"Mathematics Is Not a Spectator Sport" , 2000)
"By common consensus in the mathematical world, a good proof displays three essential characteristics: a good proof is (1) convincing, (2) surveyable, and (3) formalizable. The first requirement means simply that most mathematicians believe it when they see it. […] Most mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics demand more than mere plausibility, or even belief. A proof must be able to be understood, studied, communicated, and verified by rational analysis. In short, it must be surveyable. Finally, formalizability means we can always find a suitable formal system in which an informal proof can be embedded and fleshed out into a formal proof."
"Somehow mathematicians seem to long for more than just results from their proofs; they want insight." (John L Casti, "Mathematical Mountaintops: The Five Most Famous Problems of All Time", 2001)
"The real raison d'etre for the mathematician's existence is simply to solve problems. So what mathematics really consists of is problems and solutions. And it is the 'good' problems, the ones that challenge the greatest minds for decades, if not centuries, that eventually become enshrined as mathematical mountaintops." (John L Casti, "Mathematical Mountaintops: The Five Most Famous Problems of All Time", 2001)
"[…] a mathematician is more anonymous than an artist. While we may greatly admire a mathematician who discovers a beautiful proof, the human story behind the discovery eventually fades away and it is, in the end, the mathematics itself that delights us." (Timothy Gowers, "Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction", 2002)
"To criticize mathematics for its abstraction is to miss the point entirely. Abstraction is what makes mathematics work. If you concentrate too closely on too limited an application of a mathematical idea, you rob the mathematician of his most important tools: analogy, generality, and simplicity. Mathematics is the ultimate in technology transfer." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)
"[…] a mathematician is more anonymous than an artist. While we may greatly admire a mathematician who discovers a beautiful proof, the human story behind the discovery eventually fades away and it is, in the end, the mathematics itself that delights us." (Timothy Gowers, "Mathematics: A Very Short Introduction", 2002)
"To criticize mathematics for its abstraction is to miss the point entirely. Abstraction is what makes mathematics work. If you concentrate too closely on too limited an application of a mathematical idea, you rob the mathematician of his most important tools: analogy, generality, and simplicity. Mathematics is the ultimate in technology transfer." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)
"[…] all human beings - professional mathematicians included - are easily muddled when it comes to estimating the probabilities of rare events. Even figuring out the right question to ask can be confusing."
"Elegance and simplicity should remain important criteria in judging mathematics, but the applicability and consequences of a result are also important, and sometimes these criteria conflict. I believe that some fundamental theorems do not admit simple elegant treatments, and the proofs of such theorems may of necessity be long and complicated. Our standards of rigor and beauty must be sufficiently broad and realistic to allow us to accept and appreciate such results and their proofs. As mathematicians we will inevitably use such theorems when it is necessary in the practice our trade; our philosophy and aesthetics should reflect this reality." (Michael Aschbacher, "Highly complex proofs and implications", 2005)
“Mathematicians, then, do not just care about proving theorems: they care about proving interesting, deep, fruitful theorems, by means of elegant, ingenious, explanatory, memorable, or even amusing proofs. If we wish to understand more about the character of mathematical knowledge, we ought to investigate these kinds of evaluative claims made by mathematicians.” (Mary Leng [“Mathematical Knowledge”, Ed. by Mary Leng, Alexander Paseau and Michael Potter], 2007)
"Mathematics as done by mathematicians is not just heaping up statements logically deduced from the axioms. Most such statements are rubbish, even if perfectly correct. A good mathematician will look for interesting results. These interesting results, or theorems, organize themselves into meaningful and natural structures, and one may say that the object of mathematics is to find and study these structures.” (David Ruelle, “The Mathematician's Brain”, 2007)
“Popular accounts of mathematics often stress the discipline’s obsession with certainty, with proof. And mathematicians often tell jokes poking fun at their own insistence on precision. However, the quest for precision is far more than an end in itself. Precision allows one to reason sensibly about objects outside of ordinary experience. It is a tool for exploring possibility: about what might be, as well as what is.” (Donal O’Shea, “The Poincaré Conjecture”, 2007)
“The infinite more than anything else is what characterizes mathematics and defines its essence. […] To grapple with infinity is one of the bravest and extraordinary endeavors that human beings have ever undertaken.” (William Byers, “How Mathematicians Think”, 2007)
"There are two aspects of proof to be borne in mind. One is that it is our lingua franca. It is the mathematical mode of discourse. It is our tried-and true methodology for recording discoveries in a bullet-proof fashion that will stand the test of time. The second, and for the working mathematician the most important, aspect of proof is that the proof of a new theorem explains why the result is true. In the end what we seek is new understanding, and ’proof’ provides us with that golden nugget." (Steven G Krantz, "The Proof is in the Pudding", 2007)
"That is, the physicist likes to learn from particular illustrations of a general abstract concept. The mathematician, on the other hand, often eschews the particular in pursuit of the most abstract and general formulation possible. Although the mathematician may think from, or through, particular concrete examples in coming to appreciate the likely truth of very general statements, he will hide all those intuitive steps when he comes to present the conclusions of his thinking to outsiders. It presents the results of research as a hierarchy of definitions, theorems and proofs after the manner of Euclid; this minimizes unnecessary words but very effectively disguises the natural train of thought that led to the original results." (John D Barrow, "New Theories of Everything", 2007)
“If there is anything like a unifying aesthetic principle in mathematics, it is this: simple is beautiful. Mathematicians enjoy thinking about the simplest possible things, and the simplest possible things are imaginary.” (Paul Lockhart, “A Mathematician's Lament", 2009)
"Mathematicians seek a certain kind of beauty. Perhaps mathematical beauty is a constant - as far as the contents of mathematics are concerned - and yet the forms this beauty takes are certainly cultural. And while the history of mathematics surely is many stranded, one of its most important strands is formed by such cultural forms of mathematical beauty.” (Reviel Netz, “Ludic Proof: Greek Mathematics and the Alexandrian Aesthetic”, 2009)
“Mathematicians are sometimes described as living in an ideal world of beauty and harmony. Instead, our world is torn apart by inconsistencies, plagued by non sequiturs and, worst of all, made desolate and empty by missing links between words, and between symbols and their referents; we spend our lives patching and repairing it. Only when the last crack disappears are we rewarded by brief moments of harmony and joy.” (Alexandre V Borovik, “Mathematics under the Microscope: Notes on Cognitive Aspects of Mathematical Practice”, 2009)
“Obviously, the final goal of scientists and mathematicians is not simply the accumulation of facts and lists of formulas, but rather they seek to understand the patterns, organizing principles, and relationships between these facts to form theorems and entirely new branches of human thought.” (Clifford A Pickover, “The Math Book”, 2009)
"The reasoning of the mathematician and that of the scientist are similar to a point. Both make conjectures often prompted by particular observations. Both advance tentative generalizations and look for supporting evidence of their validity. Both consider specific implications of their generalizations and put those implications to the test. Both attempt to understand their generalizations in the sense of finding explanations for them in terms of concepts with which they are already familiar. Both notice fragmentary regularities and - through a process that may include false starts and blind alleys - attempt to put the scattered details together into what appears to be a meaningful whole. At some point, however, the mathematician’s quest and that of the scientist diverge. For scientists, observation is the highest authority, whereas what mathematicians seek ultimately for their conjectures is deductive proof." (Raymond S Nickerson, "Mathematical Reasoning: Patterns, Problems, Conjectures and Proofs", 2009)
"Elegance and simplicity should remain important criteria in judging mathematics, but the applicability and consequences of a result are also important, and sometimes these criteria conflict. I believe that some fundamental theorems do not admit simple elegant treatments, and the proofs of such theorems may of necessity be long and complicated. Our standards of rigor and beauty must be sufficiently broad and realistic to allow us to accept and appreciate such results and their proofs. As mathematicians we will inevitably use such theorems when it is necessary in the practice our trade; our philosophy and aesthetics should reflect this reality." (Michael Aschbacher, "Highly complex proofs and implications", 2005)
"At some point in his or her life every working mathematician has to explain to someone, usually a relative, that mathematics is hardly a finished project. Mathematicians know, of course, that it is far too soon to put the glorious achievements of their trade into a big museum and just become happy curators. In many respects, the study of mathematics has hardly begun."
"[…] mathematicians are much more concerned for example with the structure behind something or with the whole edifice. Mathematicians are not really puzzlers. Those who really solve mathematical puzzles are the physicists. If you like to solve mathematical puzzles, you should not study mathematics but physics!" (Carlo Beenakker, [interview] 2006)
"[…] mathematicians are much more concerned for example with the structure behind something or with the whole edifice. Mathematicians are not really puzzlers. Those who really solve mathematical puzzles are the physicists. If you like to solve mathematical puzzles, you should not study mathematics but physics!" (Carlo Beenakker, [interview] 2006)
"Many people believe that all of mathematics has already been discovered and codified. Mathematicians (they think) do nothing except rearrange the material in different ways for different types of students. This seems to be the result of the cut-and-dried method of teaching mathematics in many high schools and universities. The facts are laid out in the cleanest logical order. Little attempt is made to show how someone once had to invent it all, at first in a confused way, and that only later was it possible to give it this neat form." (Avner Ash & Robert Gross, "Fearless Symmetry: Exposing the hidden patterns of numbers", 2006)
"[…] mathematicians complain when physicists leap over technicalities, such as throwing away terms they don’t like in differential equations. […] Mathematicians worry about justifying […] approximations and spend a lot of effort coping with paranoid delusions […] Mathematicians cherish the rare moments where physicists’ leaps of faith get them into trouble. […] While it is fun to point out physicists’ errors, it is much more satisfying when wediscover something that they don’t know." (Rick Durrett, "Random Graph Dynamics", 2006)
"Mathematicians often get bored by a problem after they have fully understood it and have given proofs of their conjectures. Sometimes they even forget the precise details of what they have done after the lapse of years, having refocused their interest in another area. The common notion of the mathematician contemplating timeless truths, thinking over the same proof again and again - Euclid looking on beauty bare - is rarely true in any static sense." (Avner Ash & Robert Gross, "Fearless Symmetry: Exposing the hidden patterns of numbers", 2006)
"One thing mathematicians do is connect concepts that occur in different trains of thought." (Avner Ash & Robert Gross, "Fearless Symmetry: Exposing the hidden patterns of numbers", 2006)
"Still, in the end, we find ourselves drawn to the beauty of the patterns themselves, and the amazing fact that we humans are smart enough to prove even a feeble fraction of all possible theorems about them. Often, greater than the contemplation of this beauty for the active mathematician is the excitement of the chase. Trying to discover first what patterns actually do or do not occur, then finding the correct statement of a conjecture, and finally proving it - these things are exhilarating when accomplished successfully. Like all risk-takers, mathematicians labor months or years for these moments of success." (Avner Ash & Robert Gross, "Fearless Symmetry: Exposing the hidden patterns of numbers", 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)“Mathematicians, then, do not just care about proving theorems: they care about proving interesting, deep, fruitful theorems, by means of elegant, ingenious, explanatory, memorable, or even amusing proofs. If we wish to understand more about the character of mathematical knowledge, we ought to investigate these kinds of evaluative claims made by mathematicians.” (Mary Leng [“Mathematical Knowledge”, Ed. by Mary Leng, Alexander Paseau and Michael Potter], 2007)
"Mathematics as done by mathematicians is not just heaping up statements logically deduced from the axioms. Most such statements are rubbish, even if perfectly correct. A good mathematician will look for interesting results. These interesting results, or theorems, organize themselves into meaningful and natural structures, and one may say that the object of mathematics is to find and study these structures.” (David Ruelle, “The Mathematician's Brain”, 2007)
“Popular accounts of mathematics often stress the discipline’s obsession with certainty, with proof. And mathematicians often tell jokes poking fun at their own insistence on precision. However, the quest for precision is far more than an end in itself. Precision allows one to reason sensibly about objects outside of ordinary experience. It is a tool for exploring possibility: about what might be, as well as what is.” (Donal O’Shea, “The Poincaré Conjecture”, 2007)
“The infinite more than anything else is what characterizes mathematics and defines its essence. […] To grapple with infinity is one of the bravest and extraordinary endeavors that human beings have ever undertaken.” (William Byers, “How Mathematicians Think”, 2007)
"There are two aspects of proof to be borne in mind. One is that it is our lingua franca. It is the mathematical mode of discourse. It is our tried-and true methodology for recording discoveries in a bullet-proof fashion that will stand the test of time. The second, and for the working mathematician the most important, aspect of proof is that the proof of a new theorem explains why the result is true. In the end what we seek is new understanding, and ’proof’ provides us with that golden nugget." (Steven G Krantz, "The Proof is in the Pudding", 2007)
"That is, the physicist likes to learn from particular illustrations of a general abstract concept. The mathematician, on the other hand, often eschews the particular in pursuit of the most abstract and general formulation possible. Although the mathematician may think from, or through, particular concrete examples in coming to appreciate the likely truth of very general statements, he will hide all those intuitive steps when he comes to present the conclusions of his thinking to outsiders. It presents the results of research as a hierarchy of definitions, theorems and proofs after the manner of Euclid; this minimizes unnecessary words but very effectively disguises the natural train of thought that led to the original results." (John D Barrow, "New Theories of Everything", 2007)
“If there is anything like a unifying aesthetic principle in mathematics, it is this: simple is beautiful. Mathematicians enjoy thinking about the simplest possible things, and the simplest possible things are imaginary.” (Paul Lockhart, “A Mathematician's Lament", 2009)
"Mathematicians seek a certain kind of beauty. Perhaps mathematical beauty is a constant - as far as the contents of mathematics are concerned - and yet the forms this beauty takes are certainly cultural. And while the history of mathematics surely is many stranded, one of its most important strands is formed by such cultural forms of mathematical beauty.” (Reviel Netz, “Ludic Proof: Greek Mathematics and the Alexandrian Aesthetic”, 2009)
“Mathematicians are sometimes described as living in an ideal world of beauty and harmony. Instead, our world is torn apart by inconsistencies, plagued by non sequiturs and, worst of all, made desolate and empty by missing links between words, and between symbols and their referents; we spend our lives patching and repairing it. Only when the last crack disappears are we rewarded by brief moments of harmony and joy.” (Alexandre V Borovik, “Mathematics under the Microscope: Notes on Cognitive Aspects of Mathematical Practice”, 2009)
“Obviously, the final goal of scientists and mathematicians is not simply the accumulation of facts and lists of formulas, but rather they seek to understand the patterns, organizing principles, and relationships between these facts to form theorems and entirely new branches of human thought.” (Clifford A Pickover, “The Math Book”, 2009)
"The reasoning of the mathematician and that of the scientist are similar to a point. Both make conjectures often prompted by particular observations. Both advance tentative generalizations and look for supporting evidence of their validity. Both consider specific implications of their generalizations and put those implications to the test. Both attempt to understand their generalizations in the sense of finding explanations for them in terms of concepts with which they are already familiar. Both notice fragmentary regularities and - through a process that may include false starts and blind alleys - attempt to put the scattered details together into what appears to be a meaningful whole. At some point, however, the mathematician’s quest and that of the scientist diverge. For scientists, observation is the highest authority, whereas what mathematicians seek ultimately for their conjectures is deductive proof." (Raymond S Nickerson, "Mathematical Reasoning: Patterns, Problems, Conjectures and Proofs", 2009)
No comments:
Post a Comment