"The fruitful generalization in mathematics often involves starting from a commonsense concept such as a point on a line. A mathematical framework is then developed within which the particular example of a point in space is seen to be just a very special case of a much broader structure, say a point in three-dimensional space. Further generalizations then show this new structure itself to be only a special case of an even broader framework, the notion of a point in a space of n dimensions. And so it goes, one generalization piled atop another, each element leading to a deeper understanding of how the original object fits into a bigger picture." (John L Casti, "Five More Golden Rules : Knots, Codes, Chaos, and Other Great Theories of 20th Century Mathematics", 2000)
"A mental model is a representation of some domain or situation that supports understanding, reasoning, and prediction. Mental models permit reasoning about situations not directly experienced. They allow people to mentally simulate the behavior of a system. Many mental models are based on generalizations and analogies from experience." (D Gentner, "Psychology of Mental Models" [in "International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences"], 2001)
"Ecology, on the other hand, is messy. We cannot find anything deserving of the term law, not because ecology is less developed than physics, but simply because the underlying phenomena are more chaotic and hence less amenable to description via generalization." (Lev Ginzburg & Mark Colyvan, "Ecological Orbits: How Planets Move and Populations Grow", 2004)
"Limiting factors in population dynamics play the role in ecology that friction does in physics. They stop exponential growth, not unlike the way in which friction stops uniform motion. Whether or not ecology is more like physics in a viscous liquid, when the growth-rate-based traditional view is sufficient, is an open question. We argue that this limit is an oversimplification, that populations do exhibit inertial properties that are noticeable. Note that the inclusion of inertia is a generalization - it does not exclude the regular rate-based, first-order theories. They may still be widely applicable under a strong immediate density dependence, acting like friction in physics." (Lev Ginzburg & Mark Colyvan, "Ecological Orbits: How Planets Move and Populations Grow", 2004)
"Mathematical truth is not totally objective. If a mathematical statement is false, there will be no proofs, but if it is true, there will be an endless variety of proofs, not just one! Proofs are not impersonal, they express the personality of their creator/discoverer just as much as literary efforts do. If something important is true, there will be many reasons that it is true, many proofs of that fact. [...] each proof will emphasize different aspects of the problem, each proof will lead in a different direction. Each one will have different corollaries, different generalizations. [...] the world of mathematical truth has infinite complexity […]" (Gregory Chaitin, "Meta Math: The Quest for Omega", 2005)
"The concept of symmetry (invariance) with its rigorous mathematical formulation and generalization has guided us to know the most fundamental of physical laws. Symmetry as a concept has helped mankind not only to define ‘beauty’ but also to express the ‘truth’. Physical laws tries to quantify the truth that appears to be ‘transient’ at the level of phenomena but symmetry promotes that truth to the level of ‘eternity’." (Vladimir G Ivancevic & Tijana T Ivancevic, "Quantum Leap", 2008)
"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