23 April 2022

On Rigor (2000-2009)

"What does a rigorous proof consist of? The word ‘proof’ has a different meaning in different intellectual pursuits. A ‘proof’ in biology might consist of experimental data confirming a certain hypothesis; a ‘proof’ in sociology or psychology might consist of the results of a survey. What is common to all forms of proof is that they are arguments that convince experienced practitioners of the given field. So too for mathematical proofs. Such proofs are, ultimately, convincing arguments that show that the desired conclusions follow logically from the given hypotheses." (Ethan Bloch, "Proofs and Fundamentals", 2000)

"Most physical systems, particularly those complex ones, are extremely difficult to model by an accurate and precise mathematical formula or equation due to the complexity of the system structure, nonlinearity, uncertainty, randomness, etc. Therefore, approximate modeling is often necessary and practical in real-world applications. Intuitively, approximate modeling is always possible. However, the key questions are what kind of approximation is good, where the sense of 'goodness' has to be first defined, of course, and how to formulate such a good approximation in modeling a system such that it is mathematically rigorous and can produce satisfactory results in both theory and applications." (Guanrong Chen & Trung Tat Pham, "Introduction to Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, and Fuzzy Control Systems", 2001)

"The fuzzy set theory is taking the same logical approach as what people have been doing with the classical set theory: in the classical set theory, as soon as the two-valued characteristic function has been defined and adopted, rigorous mathematics follows; in the fuzzy set case, as soon as a multi-valued characteristic function (the membership function) has been chosen and fixed, a rigorous mathematical theory can be fully developed." (Guanrong Chen & Trung Tat Pham, "Introduction to Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, and Fuzzy Control Systems", 2001)

"In essence, mathematicians wanted to prove two things: 1.Mathematics is consistent: Mathematics contains no internal contradictions. There are no slips of reason or ambiguities. No matter from what direction we approach the edifice of mathematics, it will always display the same rigor and truth. 2.Mathematics is complete: No mathematical truths are left hanging. Nothing needs adding to the system. Mathematicians can prove every theorem with total rigor so that nothing is excluded from the overall system." (F David Peat, "From Certainty to Uncertainty", 2002)

"Pure mathematics was characterized by an obsession with proof, rigor, beauty, and elegance, and sought its foundations in the disembodied worlds of logic or intuition. Far from being coextensive with physics, pure mathematics could be ‘applied’ only after it had been made foundationally secure by the purists." (Andrew Warwick,"Masters of Theory: Cambridge and the rise of mathematical physics", 2003)

"When you’re trying to prove something, it helps to know it’s true. That gives you the confidence you need to keep searching for a rigorous proof." (Steven Strogatz, "Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order", 2003)

"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)

"Another feature of Bourbaki is that it rejects intuition of any kind. Bourbaki books tend not to contain explanations, examples, or heuristics. One of the main messages of the present book is that we record mathematics for posterity in a strictly rigorous, axiomatic fashion. This is the mathematician’s version of the reproducible experiment with control used by physicists and biologists and chemists. But we learn mathematics, we discover mathematics, we create mathematics using intuition and trial and error. We draw pictures. Certainly, we try things and twist things around and bend things to try to make them work. Unfortunately, Bourbaki does not teach any part of this latter process." (Steven G Krantz,"The Proof is in the Pudding", 2007)

"The ever-present rigorous proof is both a science and an art." (Edward B. Burger, Zero To Infinity: A History of Numbers", 2007)

"As students, we learned mathematics from textbooks. In textbooks, mathematics is presented in a rigorous and logical way: definition, theorem, proof, example. But it is not discovered that way. It took many years for a mathematical subject to be understood well enough that a cohesive textbook could be written. Mathematics is created through slow, incremental progress, large leaps, missteps, corrections, and connections." (Richard S Richeson,"Eulers Gem: The Polyhedron Formula and the birth of Topology", 2008)

"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)

"Therefore, mathematical ecology does not deal directly with natural objects. Instead, it deals with the mathematical objects and operations we offer as analogs of nature and natural processes. These mathematical models do not contain all information about nature that we may know, but only what we think are the most pertinent for the problem at hand. In mathematical modeling, we have abstracted nature into simpler form so that we have some chance of understanding it. Mathematical ecology helps us understand the logic of our thinking about nature to help us avoid making plausible arguments that may not be true or only true under certain restrictions. It helps us avoid wishful thinking about how we would like nature to be in favor of rigorous thinking about how nature might actually work. (John Pastor, "Mathematical Ecology of Populations and Ecosystems", 2008)

"When in the sciences or techniques one states that a certain problem is unsolvable, a rigorous demonstration of such unsolvability is required. And when a scientist submits an article to publication, the least that its referees demand is that it be intelligible. Why? Because rational beings long for understanding and because only clear statements are susceptible to be put to examination to verify whether they are true or false. In the Humanities it is the same, or it should be, but it is not always so. (Mario Bunge, "Xenius, Platón y Manolito", La Nación, 2008)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Douglas T Ross - Collected Quotes

"Automatic design has the computer do too much and the human do too little, whereas automatic programming has the human do too much and...