08 July 2023

On Standards I: Mathematics I

"Measure consists in the superposition of the magnitudes to be compared; it therefore requires a means of using one magnitude as the standard for another. In the absence of this, two magnitudes can only be compared when one is a part of the other; in which case we can only determine the more or less and not the how much." (Bernhard Riemann, "On the hypotheses which lie at the foundation of geometry", 1854)

"It has long been a complaint against mathematicians that they are hard to convince: but it is a far greater disqualification both for philosophy, and for the affairs of life, to be too easily convinced; to have too low a standard of proof. The only sound intellects are those which, in the first instance, set their standards of proof high. Practice in concrete affairs soon teaches them to make the necessary abatement: but they retain the consciousness, without which there is no sound practical reasoning, that in accepting inferior evidence because there is no better to be had, they do not by that acceptance raise it to completeness." (John S Mill, "An Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy", 1865)

"Judged by the only standards which are admissible in a pure doctrine of numbers i is imaginary in the same sense as the negative, the fraction, and the irrational, but in no other sense; all are alike mere symbols devised for the sake of representing the results of operations even when these results are not numbers (positive integers)." (Henry B Fine, "The Number-System of Algebra", 1890)

"The main source of mathematical invention seems to be within man rather than outside of him: his own inveterate and insatiable curiosity, his constant itching for intellectual adventure; and likewise the main obstacles to mathematical progress seem to be also within himself; his scandalous inertia and laziness, his fear of adventure, his need of conformity to old standards, and his obsession by mathematical ghosts." (George Sarton, "The Study of the History of Mathematics", 1936)

"Mathematicians themselves set up standards of generality and elegance in their exposition which are a bar to understand." (Kenneth E Boulding, "Economic Analysis", 1941)

"As an Art, Mathematics has its own standard of beauty and elegance which can vie with the more decorative arts. In this it is diametrically opposed to a Baroque art which relies on a wealth of ornamental additions. Bereft of superfluous addenda, Mathematics may appear, on first acquaintance, austere and severe. But longer contemplation reveals the classic attributes of simplicity relative to its significance and depth of meaning." (Dudley E Littlewood,"The Skeleton Key of Mathematics", 1949)

"Demonstrative reasoning is safe, beyond controversy, and final. Plausible reasoning is hazardous, controversial, and provisional. Demonstrative reasoning penetrates the sciences just as far as mathematics does, but it is in itself (as mathematics is in itself) incapable of yielding essentially new knowledge about the world around us. Anything new that we learn about the world involves plausible reasoning, which is the only kind of reasoning, for which we care in everyday affairs. Demonstrative reasoning has rigid standards, codified and clarified by logic (formal or demonstrative logic), which is the theory of demonstrative reasoning. The standards of plausible reasoning are fluid, and there is no theory of such reasoning that could be compared to demonstrative logic in clarity or would command comparable consensus." (George Pólya, "Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning", 1954)

"It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it. You may wonder: Why is nature constructed along these lines? One can only answer that our present knowledge seems to show that nature is so constructed. We simply have to accept it. One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe. Our feeble attempts at mathematics enable us to understand a bit of the universe, and as we proceed to develop higher and higher mathematics we can hope to understand the universe better." (Paul Dirac, "The Evolution of the Physicist's Picture of Nature", 1963)

"When we propose to apply mathematics we are stepping outside our own realm, and such a venture is not without dangers. For having stepped out, we must be prepared to be judged by standards not of our own making and to play games whose rules have been laid down with little or no consultation with us. Of course, we do not have to play, but if we do we have to abide by the rules and above all not try to change them merely because we find them uncomfortable or restrictive." (Mark Kac, "On Applying Mathematics: Reflections and Examples", Quarterly of Applied Mathematics, 1972)

"[...] despite an objectivity about mathematical results that has no parallel in the world of art, the motivation and standards of creative mathematics are more like those of art than of science. Aesthetic judgments transcend both logic and applicability in the ranking of mathematical theorems: beauty and elegance have more to do with the value of a mathematical idea than does either strict truth or possible utility." (Lynn A Steen, "Mathematics Today: Twelve Informal Essays", Mathematics Today, 1978)

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

On Hypothesis Testing III

  "A little thought reveals a fact widely understood among statisticians: The null hypothesis, taken literally (and that’s the only way...