03 August 2026

🥀On Aesthetic in Mathematics (1980-1999)

"Perhaps the best way to approach the question of what mathematics is, is to start at the beginning. In the far distant prehistoric past, where we must look for the beginnings of mathematics, there were already four major faces of mathematics. First, there was the ability to carry on the long chains of close reasoning that to this day characterize much of mathematics. Second, there was geometry, leading through the concept of continuity to topology and beyond. Third, there was number, leading to arithmetic, algebra, and beyond. Finally there was artistic taste, which plays so large a role in modern mathematics. There are, of course, many different kinds of beauty in mathematics. In number theory it seems to be mainly the beauty of the almost infinite detail; in abstract algebra the beauty is mainly in the generality. Various areas of mathematics thus have various standards of aesthetics." (Richard Hamming, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics", The American Mathematical Monthly Vol. 87 (2), 1980)

"Philosophical objections may be raised by the logical implications of building a mathematical structure on the premise of fuzziness, since it seems (at least superficially) necessary to require that an object be or not be an element of a given set. From an aesthetic viewpoint, this may be the most satisfactory state of affairs, but to the extent that mathematical structures are used to model physical actualities, it is often an unrealistic requirement. [...] Fuzzy sets have an intuitively plausible philosophical basis. Once this is accepted, analytical and practical considerations concerning fuzzy sets are in most respects quite orthodox." (James Bezdek, 1981)

"What could be more beautiful than a deep, satisfying relation between whole numbers. How high they rank, in the realms of pure thought and aesthetics, above their lesser brethren: the real and complex numbers." (Manfred Schroeder,"Number Theory in Science and Communication", 1984)

"The scope of Theories of Everything is infinite but bounded; they are necessary parts of a full understanding of things but they are far from sufficient to reveal everything about a Universe like ours. In the pages of this book, we have seen something of what a Theory of Everything might hope to teach us about the unity of the Universe and the way in which it may contain elements that transcend our present compartmentalized view of Nature's ingredients. But we have also learnt that there is more to Everything than meets the eye. Unlike many others that we can imagine, our world contains prospective elements. Theories of Everything can make no impression upon predicting these prospective attributes of reality; yet, strangely, many of these qualities will themselves be employed in the human selection and approval of an aesthetically acceptable Theory of Everything. There is no formula that can deliver all truth, all harmony, all simplicity. No Theory of Everything can ever provide total insight. For, to see through everything, would leave us seeing nothing at all." (John D Barrow, "New Theories of Everything", 1991)

"Music and math together satisfied a sort of abstract 'appetite', a desire that was partly intellectual, partly aesthetic, partly emotional, partly, even, physical." (Edward Rothstein,"Emblems of Mind: The Inner Life of Music and Mathematics", 1995)

"Whatever the ins and outs of poetry, one thing is clear: the manner of expression - notation - is fundamental. It is the same with mathematics - not in the aesthetic sense that the beauty of mathematics is tied up with how it is expressed - but in the sense that mathematical truths are revealed, exploited and developed by various notational innovations." (James R Brown, "Philosophy of Mathematics", 1999)



No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

🥀On Aesthetic in Mathematics (2000-)

"Where we find certainty and truth in mathematics we also find beauty. Great mathematics is characterized by its aesthetics. Mathematic...