"The world of ideas which it discloses or illuminates, the contemplation of divine beauty and order which it induces, the harmonious connexion of its parts, the infinite hierarchy and absolute evidence of the truths with which it is concerned, these, and such like, are the surest grounds of the title of mathematics to human regard, and would remain unimpeached and unimpaired were the plan of the universe unrolled like a map at our feet, and the mind of man qualified to take in the whole scheme of creation at a glance." (James J Sylvester, "The Study That Knows Nothing of Observation", 1869)
"It is a remarkable empirical fact that mathematics can be based on set theory. More precisely, all mathematical objects can be coded as sets (in the cumulative hierarchy built by transfinitely iterating the power set operation, starting with the empty set). And all their crucial properties can be proved from the axioms of set theory. (. . . ) At first sight, category theory seems to be an exception to this general phenomenon. It deals with objects, like the categories of sets, of groups etc. that are as big as the whole universe of sets and that therefore do not admit any evident coding as sets. Furthermore, category theory involves constructions, like the functor category, that lead from these large categories to even larger ones. Thus, category theory is not just another field whose set-theoretic foundation can be left as an exercise. An interaction between category theory and set theory arises because there is a real question: What is the appropriate set-theoretic foundation for category theory?" (Andreas Blass, "The interaction between category theory and set theory", 1983)
"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)
"For centuries the mind has dominated the eye in the hierarchy of mathematical practice; today the balance is being restored as mathematicians find new ways to see patterns, both with the eye and with the mind." (Lynn A Steen, "The Future of Mathematics Education", 1998)
"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)
"Mathematics courses are hierarchical but every new course begins with the assumption that the student is at the level of conceptual development that would be implied by an optimal understanding of the previous course. Unfortunately many mathematical ideas are so subtle and logically complex that it may take students many years to develop an adequate conceptual understanding. As a result, in practice there is a lot of 'faking it' going on and not merely on the part of the students." (William Byers, "Deep Thinking: What Mathematics Can Teach Us About the Mind", 2015)
No comments:
Post a Comment