Showing posts with label tools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tools. Show all posts

28 July 2025

Statistical Tools IV: Urns

"The early experts in probability theory were forever talking about drawing colored  balls out of 'urns' . This was not because people are really interested in jars or boxes full of a mixed-up lot of colored balls, but because those urns full of balls could often be designed so that they served as useful and illuminating models of important real situations. In fact, the urns and balls are not themselves supposed real. They are fictitious and idealized urns and balls, so that the probability of drawing out any one ball is just the same as for any other." (Warren Weaver, "Lady Luck: The Theory of Probability". 1963) 

"The urn model is to be the expression of three postulates: (1) the constancy of a probability distribution, ensured by the solidity of the vessel, (2) the random-character of the choice, ensured by the narrowness of the mouth, which is to prevent visibility of the contents and any consciously selective choice, (3) the independence of successive choices, whenever the drawn balls are put back into the urn. Of course in abstract probability and statistics the word 'choice' can be avoided and all can be done without any reference to such a model. But as soon as the abstract theory is to be applied, random choice plays an essential role." (Hans Freudenthal, "The Concept and the Role of the Model in Mathematics and Natural and Social Sciences", 1961)

"Specifically, it seems to me preferable to use, systematically: 'random' for that which is the object of the theory of probability […]; I will therefore say random process, not stochastic process. 'stochastic' for that which is valid 'in the sense of the calculus of probability': for instance; stochastic independence, stochastic convergence, stochastic integral; more generally, stochastic property, stochastic models, stochastic interpretation, stochastic laws; or also, stochastic matrix, stochastic distribution, etc. As for 'chance', it is perhaps better to reserve it for less technical use: in the familiar sense of'by chance', 'not for a known or imaginable reason', or (but in this case we should give notice of the fact) in the sense of, 'with equal probability' as in 'chance drawings from an urn', 'chance subdivision', and similar examples." (Bruno de Finetti, "Theory of Probability", 1974)

"Statisticians talk about populations. In probability books, the equivalent concept is an urn with numbered balls as a prototype for a population. In fact, when sampling from populations, it is customary to number the population and pretend the population is an urn from which we are drawing the sample." (Juana Sánchez, "Probability for Data Scientists", 2020)

"Many people mistakenly think that the defining property of a simple random sample is that every unit has an equal chance of being in the sample. However, this is not the case. A simple random sample of n units from a population of N means that every possible col‐lection of n of the N units has the same chance of being selected. A slight variant of this is the simple random sample with replacement, where the units/marbles are returned to the urn after each draw. This method also has the property that every sample of n units from a population of N is equally likely to be selected. The difference, though, is that there are more possible sets of n units because the same marble can appear more than once in the sample." (Sam Lau et al, "Learning Data Science: Data Wrangling, Exploration, Visualization, and Modeling with Python", 2023)

"Several key assumptions enter into this urn model, such as the assumption that the vaccine is ineffective. It’s important to keep track of the reliance on these assumptions because our simulation study gives us an approximation of the rarity of an outcome like the one observed only under these key assumptions." (Sam Lau et al, "Learning Data Science: Data Wrangling, Exploration, Visualization, and Modeling with Python", 2023)

"The urn model is a simple abstraction that can be helpful for understanding variation.This model sets up a container (an urn, which is like a vase or a bucket) full of identical marbles that have been labeled, and we use the simple action of drawing marbles from the urn to reason about sampling schemes, randomized controlled experiments, and measurement error. For each of these types of variation, the urn model helps us estimate the size of the variation using either probability or simulation." (Sam Lau et al, "Learning Data Science: Data Wrangling, Exploration, Visualization, and Modeling with Python", 2023)

11 June 2024

Statistical Tools V: Roulette

"As an instrument for selecting at random, I have found nothing superior to dice. It is most tedious to shuffle cards thoroughly be- tween each successive draw, and the method of mixing and stirring up marked balls in a bag is more tedious still. A teetotum or some form of roulette is preferable to these, but dice are better than all. When they are shaken and tossed in a basket, they hurtle so variously against one another and against the ribs of the basket-work that they tumble wildly about, and their positions at the outset afford no perceptible clue to what they will be after even a single good shake and toss." (Francis Galton, Nature vol. 42, 1890)

"In no subject is there a rule, compliance with which will lead to new knowledge or better understanding. Skillful observations, ingenious ideas, cunning tricks, daring suggestions, laborious calculations, all these may be required to advance a subject. Occasionally the conventional approach in a subject has to be studiously followed; on other occasions it has to be ruthlessly disregarded. Which of these methods, or in what order they should be employed is generally unpredictable. Analogies drawn from the history of science are frequently claimed to be a guide; but, as with forecasting the next game of roulette, the existence of the best analogy to the present is no guide whatever to the future. The most valuable lesson to be learnt from the history of scientific progress is how misleading and strangling such analogies have been, and how success has come to those who ignored them." (Thomas Gold, "Cosmology", 1956) 

“[In statistics] you have the fact that the concepts are not very clean. The idea of probability, of randomness, is not a clean mathematical idea. You cannot produce random numbers mathematically. They can only be produced by things like tossing dice or spinning a roulette wheel. With a formula, any formula, the number you get would be predictable and therefore not random. So as a statistician you have to rely on some conception of a world where things happen in some way at random, a conception which mathematicians don’t have.” (Lucien LeCam, [interview] 1988)

"Losing streaks and winning streaks occur frequently in games of chance, as they do in real life. Gamblers respond to these events in asymmetric fashion: they appeal to the law of averages to bring losing streaks to a speedy end. And they appeal to that same law of averages to suspend itself so that winning streaks will go on and on. The law of averages hears neither appeal. The last sequence of throws of the dice conveys absolutely no information about what the next throw will bring. Cards, coins, dice, and roulette wheels have no memory." (Peter L Bernstein, "Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk", 1996)

"The dice and the roulette wheel, along with the stock market and the bond market, are natural laboratories for the study of risk because they lend themselves so readily to quantification; their language is the language of numbers." (Peter L Bernstein, "Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk", 1996)

"The theory of probability can define the probabilities at the gaming casino or in a lottery - there is no need to spin the roulette wheel or count the lottery tickets to estimate the nature of the outcome - but in real life relevant information is essential. And the bother is that we never have all the information we would like. Nature has established patterns, but only for the most part. Theory, which abstracts from nature, is kinder: we either have the information we need or else we have no need for information." (Peter L Bernstein, "Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk", 1996)

“Sequences of random numbers also inevitably display certain regularities. […] The trouble is, just as no real die, coin, or roulette wheel is ever likely to be perfectly fair, no numerical recipe produces truly random numbers. The mere existence of a formula suggests some sort of predictability or pattern.” (Ivars Peterson, “The Jungles of Randomness: A Mathematical Safari”, 1998)

"The chance events due to deterministic chaos, on the other hand, occur even within a closed system determined by immutable laws. Our most cherished examples of chance - dice, roulette, coin-tossing – seem closer to chaos than to the whims of outside events. So, in this revised sense, dice are a good metaphor for chance after all. It's just that we've refined our concept of randomness. Indeed, the deterministic but possibly chaotic stripes of phase space may be the true source of probability." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"People sometimes appeal to the ‘law of averages’ to justify their faith in the gambler’s fallacy. They may reason that, since all outcomes are equally likely, in the long run they will come out roughly equal in frequency. However, the next throw is very much in the short run and the coin, die or roulette wheel has no memory of what went before." (Alan Graham, "Developing Thinking in Statistics", 2006)

"Another kind of error possibly related to the use of the representativeness heuristic is the gambler’s fallacy, otherwise known as the law of averages. If you are playing roulette and the last four spins of the wheel have led to the ball’s landing on black, you may think that the next ball is more likely than otherwise to land on red. This cannot be. The roulette wheel has no memory. The chance of black is just what it always is. The reason people tend to think otherwise may be that they expect the sequence of events to be representative of random sequences, and the typical random sequence at roulette does not have five blacks in a row." (Jonathan Baron, "Thinking and Deciding" 4th Ed, 2008)

"A very different - and very incorrect - argument is that successes must be balanced by failures (and failures by successes) so that things average out. Every coin flip that lands heads makes tails more likely. Every red at roulette makes black more likely. […] These beliefs are all incorrect. Good luck will certainly not continue indefinitely, but do not assume that good luck makes bad luck more likely, or vice versa." (Gary Smith, "Standard Deviations", 2014)

10 March 2023

On Chaos: Does God Play Dice?

"God's dice always have a lucky roll." (Sophocles, 5th century BC)

"A perfect equity adjusts its balance in all parts of life. The dice of God are always loaded. The world looks like a multiplication-table, or a mathematical equation, which, turn it how you will, balances itself." (Ralph W Emerson, "Compensation", 1841)

"It seems hard to sneak a look at God's cards. But that He plays dice and uses 'telepathic' methods [...] is something that I cannot believe for a single moment." (Albert Einstein, [Letter to Cornel Lanczos] 1942)

"You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world that objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. [...] Even the great initial success of the quantum theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we will see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one." (Albert Einstein, [Letter to Max Born] 1944)

"If God has made the world a perfect mechanism, He has at least conceded so much to our imperfect intellect that in order to predict little parts of it, we need not solve innumerable differential equations, but can use dice with fair success." (Max Born, "Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist", 1949)

"Consideration of particle emission from black holes would seem to suggest that God not only plays dice, but also sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen." (Stephen Hawking, "The Quantum Mechanics of Black Holes", Scientific American, 1977)

"Not only does God play dice with the world - He does not let us see what He has rolled." (Stanisław Lem, "Imaginary Magnitude", 1981)

"Specialists [...] are slowly coming to the realization that the universe is biased and leans to the left. [...] Many scientists have come to believe that this odd state of affairs has somethittg to do with the weak nuclear force. It seems that the weak force tends to impart a left-handed spin to electrons, and this effect may bias some kinds of molecular synthesis to the left. [...] But scientific speculation of this ilk leads to a deeper question. Was it purely a matter of chance that left-handedness became the preferred direction in our universe, or is there some reason behind it? Did the sinister bent of existence that scientists have observed stem from a roll of the dice, or is God a semiambidextrous southpaw?" (Malcolm W Browne, 1986)

"So Einstein was wrong when he said, 'God does not play dice'. Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that he sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen." (Stephen Hawking, 1994)

"Yet, Einstein's theories are also not the last word: quantum theory and relativity are inconsistent, and Einstein himself, proclaiming that 'God does not play dice!', rejected the basic reliance of quantum theory on chance events, and looked forward to a theory which would be deterministic. Recent experiments suggest that this view of Einstein's conflicts with his other deeply held beliefs about the nature of the physical universe. Certain it is that somewhere, beyond physicists' current horizons, are even more powerful theories of how the world is." (David Wells, "You Are a Mathematician: A wise and witty introduction to the joy of numbers", 1995)

"Chaos teaches us that anybody, God or cat, can play dice deterministically, while the naïve onlooker imagines that something random is going on." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 1997)

"Indeed a deterministic die behaves very much as if it has six attractors, the steady states corresponding to its six faces, all of whose basins are intertwined. For technical reasons that can't quite be true, but it is true that deterministic systems with intertwined basins are wonderful substitutes for dice; in fact they're super-dice, behaving even more ‘randomly’ - apparently - than ordinary dice. Super-dice are so chaotic that they are uncomputable. Even if you know the equations for the system perfectly, then given an initial state, you cannot calculate which attractor it will end up on. The tiniest error of approximation - and there will always be such an error - will change the answer completely." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 1997)

"Perhaps God can play dice, and create a universe of complete law and order, in the same breath." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 1997)

"Simple laws may not produce simple behaviour. Deterministic laws can produce behaviour that appears random. Order can breed its own kind of chaos. The question is not so much whether God plays dice, but how God plays dice.", 1997)

"The chance events due to deterministic chaos, on the other hand, occur even within a closed system determined by immutable laws. Our most cherished examples of chance - dice, roulette, coin-tossing - seem closer to chaos than to the whims of outside events. So, in this revised sense, dice are a good metaphor for chance after all. It's just that we've refined our concept of randomness. Indeed, the deterministic but possibly chaotic stripes of phase space may be the true source of probability." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 1997)

"[…] we would like to observe that the butterfly effect lies at the root of many events which we call random. The final result of throwing a dice depends on the position of the hand throwing it, on the air resistance, on the base that the die falls on, and on many other factors. The result appears random because we are not able to take into account all of these factors with sufficient accuracy. Even the tiniest bump on the table and the most imperceptible move of the wrist affect the position in which the die finally lands. It would be reasonable to assume that chaos lies at the root of all random phenomena." (Iwo Bialynicki-Birula & Iwona Bialynicka-Birula, "Modeling Reality: How Computers Mirror Life", 2004)

"Freedom, then, is the ability to choose at will from the greatest number of options available to us. In other words, entropy is freedom; and the equal opportunity (rather than equality per se) that maximizes the number of options available is the second law of thermodynamics. When the number of options available to us is infinite, choice becomes random and the microstate in which we exist is our fate that is determined by God’s game of dice." (Oded Kafri & Hava Kafri, "Entropy: God's Dice Game", 2013)

"There is no such thing as randomness. No one who could detect every force operating on a pair of dice would ever play dice games, because there would never be any doubt about the outcome. The randomness, such as it is, applies to our ignorance of the possible outcomes. It doesn’t apply to the outcomes themselves. They are 100% determined and are not random in the slightest. Scientists have become so confused by this that they now imagine that things really do happen randomly, i.e. for no reason at all." (Thomas Stark, "God Is Mathematics: The Proofs of the Eternal Existence of Mathematics", 2018)

"God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on with the prime numbers." (Paul Erdos)

"God plays dice with the universe, but they’re loaded dice. And the main objective of physics now is to find out by what rules were they loaded and how can we use them for our own ends." (Joseph Ford)

"I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world." (Albert Einstein)

24 October 2021

Statistical Tools VI: Pinball Machines

"Because chaos is deterministic, or nearly so, games of chance should not be expected to provide us with simple examples, but games that appear to involve chance ought to be able to take their place. Among the devices that can produce chaos, the one that is nearest of kin to the coin or the deck of cards may well be the pinball machine. It should be an old-fashioned one, with no flippers or flashing lights, and with nothing but simple pins to disturb the free roll of the ball until it scores or becomes dead." (Edward N Lorenz, "The Essence of Chaos", 1993)

"Dynamical systems that vary continuously, like the pendulum and the rolling rock, and evidently the pinball machine when a ball’s complete motion is considered, are technically known as flows. The mathematical tool for handling a flow is the differential equation. A system of differential equations amounts to a set of formulas that together express the rates at which all of the variables are currently changing, in terms of the current values of the variables." (Edward N Lorenz, "The Essence of Chaos", 1993)

"The pinball machine is one of those rare dynamical systems whose chaotic nature we can deduce by pure qualitative reasoning, with fair confidence that we have not wandered astray. Nevertheless, the angles in the paths of the balls that are introduced whenever a ball strikes a pin and rebounds […] render the system some what inconvenient for detailed quantitative study." (Edward N Lorenz, "The Essence of Chaos", 1993)

"When the pinball game is treated as a flow instead of a mapping, and a simple enough system of differential equations is used as a model, it may be possible to solve the equations. A complete solution will contain expressions that give the values of the variables at any given time in terms of the values at any previous time. When the times are those of consecutive strikes on a pin, the expressions will amount to nothing more than a system of difference equations, which in this case will have been derived by solving the differential equations. Thus a mapping will have been derived from a flow." (Edward N Lorenz, "The Essence of Chaos", 1993)

"In a complex society, individuals, organizations, and states require a high degree of confidence - even if it is misplaced - in the short-term future and a reasonable degree of confidence about the longer term. In its absence they could not commit themselves to decisions, investments, and policies. Like nudging the frame of a pinball machine to influence the path of the ball, we cope with the dilemma of uncertainty by doing what we can to make our expectations of the future self-fulfilling. We seek to control the social and physical worlds not only to make them more predictable but to reduce the likelihood of disruptive and damaging shocks (e.g., floods, epidemics, stock market crashes, foreign attacks). Our fallback strategy is denial." (Richard N Lebow, "Forbidden Fruit: Counterfactuals and International Relations", 2010)

26 May 2021

On Randomness XXI (Statistical Tools I)

"If you take a pack of cards as it comes from the maker and shuffle it for a few minutes, all trace of the original systematic order disappears. The order will never come back however long you shuffle. Something has been done which cannot be undone, namely, the introduction of a random element in place of the arrangement." (Sir Arthur S Eddington, "The Nature of the Physical World", 1928)

"We must emphasize that such terms as 'select at random', 'choose at random', and the like, always mean that some mechanical device, such as coins, cards, dice, or tables of random numbers, is used." (Frederick Mosteller et al, "Principles of Sampling", Journal of the American Statistical Association Vol. 49 (265), 1954)

"It is seen that continued shuffling may reasonably be expected to produce perfect 'randomness' and to eliminate all traces of the original order. It should be noted, however, that the number of operations required for this purpose is extremely large."  (William Feller, "An Introduction To Probability Theory And Its Applications", 1950)

"The urn model is to be the expression of three postulates: (1) the constancy of a probability distribution, ensured by the solidity of the vessel, (2) the random-character of the choice, ensured by the narrowness of the mouth, which is to prevent visibility of the contents and any consciously selective choice, (3) the independence of successive choices, whenever the drawn balls are put back into the urn. Of course in abstract probability and statistics the word 'choice' can be avoided and all can be done without any reference to such a model. But as soon as the abstract theory is to be applied, random choice plays an essential role." (Hans Freudenthal, "The Concept and the Role of the Model in Mathematics and Natural and Social Sciences", 1961)

"Sequences of random numbers also inevitably display certain regularities. […] The trouble is, just as no real die, coin, or roulette wheel is ever likely to be perfectly fair, no numerical recipe produces truly random numbers. The mere existence of a formula suggests some sort of predictability or pattern." (Ivars Peterson, "The Jungles of Randomness: A Mathematical Safari", 1998)

"Indeed a deterministic die behaves very much as if it has six attractors, the steady states corresponding to its six faces, all of whose basins are intertwined. For technical reasons that can't quite be true, but it is true that deterministic systems with intertwined basins are wonderful substitutes for dice; in fact they're super-dice, behaving even more ‘randomly’ - apparently - than ordinary dice. Super-dice are so chaotic that they are uncomputable. Even if you know the equations for the system perfectly, then given an initial state, you cannot calculate which attractor it will end up on. The tiniest error of approximation – and there will always be such an error - will change the answer completely." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"It's a bit like having a theory about coins that move in space, but only being able to measure their state by interrupting them with a table. We hypothesize that the coin may be able to revolve in space, a state that is neither ‘heads’ nor ‘tails’ but a kind of mixture. Our experimental proof is that when you stick a table in, you get heads half the time and tails the other half - randomly. This is by no means a perfect analogy with standard quantum theory - a revolving coin is not exactly in a superposition of heads and tails - but it captures some of the flavour." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"Randomness is a difficult notion for people to accept. When events come in clusters and streaks, people look for explanations and patterns. They refuse to believe that such patterns - which frequently occur in random data - could equally well be derived from tossing a coin. So it is in the stock market as well." (Didier Sornette, "Why Stock Markets Crash: Critical events in complex financial systems", 2003)

"[…] we would like to observe that the butterfly effect lies at the root of many events which we call random. The final result of throwing a dice depends on the position of the hand throwing it, on the air resistance, on the base that the die falls on, and on many other factors. The result appears random because we are not able to take into account all of these factors with sufficient accuracy. Even the tiniest bump on the table and the most imperceptible move of the wrist affect the position in which the die finally lands. It would be reasonable to assume that chaos lies at the root of all random phenomena." (Iwo Bialynicki-Birula & Iwona Bialynicka-Birula, "Modeling Reality: How Computers Mirror Life", 2004)

"There is no such thing as randomness. No one who could detect every force operating on a pair of dice would ever play dice games, because there would never be any doubt about the outcome. The randomness, such as it is, applies to our ignorance of the possible outcomes. It doesn’t apply to the outcomes themselves. They are 100% determined and are not random in the slightest. Scientists have become so confused by this that they now imagine that things really do happen randomly, i.e. for no reason at all." (Thomas Stark, "God Is Mathematics: The Proofs of the Eternal Existence of Mathematics", 2018)

30 April 2021

Statistical Tools III: Cards

"In short, absolute, so-called mathematical factors never find a firm basis in military calculations. From the very start there is an interplay of possibilities, probabilities, good luck and bad that weaves its way throughout the length and breadth of the tapestry. In the whole range the human activities war most closely resembles a game of cards." (Carl von Clausewitz, "On War", 1832)

"The law of large numbers is noted in events which are attributed to pure chance since we do not know their causes or because they are too complicated. Thus, games, in which the circumstances determining the occurrence of a certain card or certain number of points on a die infinitely vary, can not be subjected to any calculus. If the series of trials is continued for a long time, the different outcomes nevertheless appear in constant ratios. Then, if calculations according to the rules of a game are possible, the respective probabilities of eventual outcomes conform to the known Jakob Bernoulli theorem. However, in most problems of contingency a prior determination of chances of the various events is impossible and, on the contrary, they are calculated from the observed result." (Siméon-Denis Poisson, "Researches into the Probabilities of Judgements in Criminal and Civil Cases", 1837)

"As an instrument for selecting at random, I have found nothing superior to dice. It is most tedious to shuffle cards thoroughly be- tween each successive draw, and the method of mixing and stirring up marked balls in a bag is more tedious still. A teetotum or some form of roulette is preferable to these, but dice are better than all. When they are shaken and tossed in a basket, they hurtle so variously against one another and against the ribs of the basket-work that they tumble wildly about, and their positions at the outset afford no perceptible clue to what they will be after even a single good shake and toss." (Francis Galton, Nature vol. 42, 1890) 

"Scientific facts accumulate rapidly, and give rise to theories with almost equal rapidity. These theories are often wonderfully enticing, and one is apt to pass from one to another, from theory to theory, without taking care to establish each before passing on to the next, without assuring oneself that the foundation on which one is building is secure. Then comes the crash; the last theory breaks down utterly, and on attempting to retrace our steps to firm ground and start anew, we may find too late that one of the cards, possibly at the very foundation of the pagoda, is either faultily placed or in itself defective, and that this blemish easily remedied if detected in time has, neglected, caused the collapse of the whole structure on whose erection so much skill and perseverance have been spent." (Arthur M Marshall, 1894)

"If you take a pack of cards as it comes from the maker and shuffle it for a few minutes, all trace of the original systematic order disappears. The order will never come back however long you shuffle. Something has been done which cannot be undone, namely, the introduction of a random element in place of the arrangement." (Sir Arthur S Eddington, "The Nature of the Physical World", 1928)

"It seems hard to sneak a look at God's cards. But that He plays dice and uses 'telepathic' methods [...] is something that I cannot believe for a single moment." (Albert Einstein, [Letter to Cornel Lanczos] 1942)

"We must emphasize that such terms as 'select at random', 'choose at random', and the like, always mean that some mechanical device, such as coins, cards, dice, or tables of random numbers, is used." (Frederick Mosteller et al, "Principles of Sampling", Journal of the American Statistical Association Vol. 49 (265), 1954)

"A thorough understanding of game theory, should dim these greedy hopes. Knowledge of game theory does not make one a better card player, businessman or military strategist." (Anatol Rapoport, "The Use and Misuse of Game Theory," 1962)

"Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you represents determinism. The way you play it is free will." (Jawaharlal Nehru, Saturday Review, 1967)

"There may be such a thing as habitual luck. People who are said to be lucky at cards probably have certain hidden talents for those games in which skill plays a role. It is like hidden parameters in physics, this ability that does not surface and that I like to call 'habitual luck'." (Stanislaw Ulam, "Adventures of a Mathematician", 1976)

"Gambling was the place where statistics and profound human consequences met most nakedly, after all, and cards, even more than dice or the numbers on a roulette wheel, seemed able to define and perhaps even dictate a player's... luck." (Tim Powers, "Last Call", 1992)

"An example, which, like tossing a coin, is intimately associated with games of chance, is the shuffling of a deck of cards. […] the process is not completely random, if by what happens next we mean the outcome of the next single riffle, since one riffle cannot change any given order of the cards in the deck to any other given order. In particular, a single riffle cannot completely reverse the order of the cards, although a sufficient number of successive riffles, of course, can produce any order." (Edward N Lorenz, "The Essence of Chaos", 1993)

"Whether we shuffle cards or roll dice, chance is only a result of our human lack of deftness: we don't have enough control to immobilize a die at will or to individually direct the cards in a deck. The comparison is an important one nonetheless, and highlights the limits of this method of creating chance - it doesn't matter who rolls the dice, but we wouldn't let just anyone shuffle the cards." (Ivar Ekeland, "The Broken Dice, and Other Mathematical Tales of Chance", 1993)

"For several centuries that we know of, and probably for many centuries before that, flipping a coin (or rolling a die) has been the epitome of probability, the paradigm of randomness. You flip the coin (or roll the die), and nobody can accurately predict how it will fall. Nor can the most powerful computer predict correctly how it will fall, if it is flipped energetically enough. This is why cards, dice, and other gambling aids crop up so often in literature both directly and as metaphors. No doubt it is also the reason for the (perhaps excessive) popularity of gambling as entertainment. If anyone had any idea what numbers the lottery would show, or where the roulette ball will land, the whole industry would be a dead duck." (David Stirzaker, "Probability and Random Variables: A Beginner’s Guide", 1999)

"We cannot really have a perfectly shuffled pack of perfect cards; this ‘collection of equally likely hands’ is actually a fiction. We create the idea, and then use the rules of arithmetic to calculate the required chances. This is characteristic of all mathematics, which concerns itself only with rules defining the behaviour of entities which are themselves undefined (such as ‘numbers’ or ‘points’)." (David Stirzaker, "Probability and Random Variables: A Beginner’s Guide", 1999)

"To look at the development of physics since Newton is to observe a struggle to define the limits of science. Part of this process has been the intrusion of scientific methods and ideas into domains that have traditionally been the province of metaphysics or religion. In this conflict, Hawking’s phrase ‘to know the Mind of God’ is just one example of a border infringement. But by playing the God card, Hawking has cleverly fanned the flames of his own publicity, appealing directly to the popular allure of the scientist-as-priest." (Peter Coles, "Hawking and the Mind of God", 2000)

"In contrast, the system may be a pack of cards, and the dynamic may be to shuffle the pack and then take the top card. Imagine that the current top card is the ace of spades, and that after shuffling the pack the top card becomes the seven of diamonds. Does that imply that whenever the top card is the ace of spades then the next top card will always be the seven of diamonds? Of course not. So this system is random."(Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"In modelling terms, the difference between randomness and determinacy is clear enough. The randomness in the pack of cards arises from our failure to prescribe unique rules for getting from the current state to the next one. There are lots of different ways to shuffle a pack. The determinism of the cannonball is a combination of two things: fully prescribed rules of behaviour, and fully defined initial conditions. Notice that in both systems we are thinking on a very short timescale: it is the next state that matters - or, if time is flowing continuously, it is the state a tiny instant into the future. We don't need to consider long-term behaviour to distinguish randomness from determinacy."(Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"The randomness of the card-shuffle is of course caused by our lack of knowledge of the precise procedure used to shuffle the cards. But that is outside the chosen system, so in our practical sense it is not admissible. If we were to change the system to include information about the shuffling rule – for example, that it is given by some particular computer code for pseudo-random numbers, starting with a given ‘seed value’ – then the system would look deterministic. Two computers of the same make running the same ‘random shuffle’ program would actually produce the identical sequence of top cards."(Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"Players must accept the cards dealt to them. However, once they have those cards in hand, they alone choose how they will play them. They decide what risks and actions to take." (John C Maxwell, "The Difference Maker: Making Your Attitude Your Greatest Asset", 2006)

"It's a game of a million inferences. There are a lot of things to draw inferences from - cards played and not played. These inferences tell you something about the probabilities. It's got to be the best intellectual exercise out there. You're seeing through new situations every ten minutes. Bridge is about weighing gain/loss ratios. You're doing calculations all the time." (Warren Buffett)

"The card-player begins by arranging his hand for maximum sense. Scientists do the same with the facts they gather." (Isaac Asimov)

Statistical Tools I: Coins

"Equiprobability in the physical world is purely a hypothesis. We may exercise the greatest care and the most accurate of scientific instruments to determine whether or not a penny is symmetrical. Even if we are satisfied that it is, and that our evidence on that point is conclusive, our knowledge, or rather our ignorance, about the vast number of other causes which affect the fall of the penny is so abysmal that the fact of the penny’s symmetry is a mere detail. Thus, the statement 'head and tail are equiprobable' is at best an assumption." (Edward Kasner & James R Newman, "Mathematics and the Imagination", 1940)

"A misunderstanding of Bernoulli’s theorem is responsible for one of the commonest fallacies in the estimation of probabilities, the fallacy of the maturity of chances. When a coin has come down heads twice in succession, gamblers sometimes say that it is more likely to come down tails next time because ‘by the law of averages’ (whatever that may mean) the proportion of tails must be brought right some time." (William Kneale, "Probability and Induction", 1949)

"We must emphasize that such terms as 'select at random', 'choose at random', and the like, always mean that some mechanical device, such as coins, cards, dice, or tables of random numbers, is used." (Frederick Mosteller et al, "Principles of Sampling", Journal of the American Statistical Association Vol. 49 (265), 1954)

"And nobody can get [...] far without at least an acquaintance with the mathematics of probability, not to the extent of making its calculations and filling examination papers with typical equations, but enough to know when they can be trusted, and when they are cooked. For when their imaginary numbers correspond to exact quantities of hard coins unalterably stamped with heads and tails, they are safe within certain limits; for here we have solid certainty [...] but when the calculation is one of no constant and several very capricious variables, guesswork, personal bias, and pecuniary interests, come in so strong that those who began by ignorantly imagining that statistics cannot lie end by imagining equally ignorantly, that they never do anything else." (George B Shaw, "The World of Mathematics", 1956)

"[...] there can be such a thing as a simple probabilistic system. For example, consider the tossing of a penny. Here is a perfectly simple system, but one which is notoriously unpredictable. It maybe described in terms of a binary decision process, with a built-in even probability between the two possible outcomes." (Stafford Beer, "Cybernetics and Management", 1959)

"The shrewd guess, the fertile hypothesis, the courageous leap to a tentative conclusion - these are the most valuable coin of the thinker at work." (Jerome S Bruner, "The Process of Education", 1960)

"No Chancellor of the Exchequer could introduce his proposals for monetary and fiscal policy in the House of Commons by saying 'I have looked at all the forecasts, some go one way, some another; so I decided to toss a coin and assume inflationary tendencies if it came down heads and deflationary if it came down tails' [...] And statistics, however uncertain, can apparently provide some basis." (Ely Devons, "Essays in Economics", 1961)

"The equanimity of your average tosser of coins depends upon a law, or rather a tendency, or let us say a probability, or at any rate a mathematically calculable chance, which ensures that he will not upset himself by losing too much nor upset his opponent by winning too often." (Tom Stoppard, "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead", 1967)

"A significant property of the value function, called loss aversion, is that the response to losses is more extreme than the response to gains. The common reluctance to accept a fair bet on the toss of a coin suggests that the displeasure of losing a sum of money exceeds the pleasure of winning the same amount. Thus the proposed value function is (i) defined on gains and losses, (ii) generally concave for gains and convex for losses, and (iii) steeper for losses than for gains." (Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions", The Journal of Business Vol. 59 (4), 1986)

"Flip a coin 100 times. Assume that 99 heads are obtained. If you ask a statistician, the response is likely to be: 'It is a biased coin'. But if you ask a probabilist, he may say: 'Wooow, what a rare event'." (Chamont Wang, "Sense and Nonsense of Statistical Inference", 1993)

"The coin is an example of complete randomness. It is the sort of randomness that one commonly has in mind when thinking of random numbers, or deciding to use a random-number generator." (Edward N Lorenz, "The Essence of Chaos", 1993)

"Losing streaks and winning streaks occur frequently in games of chance, as they do in real life. Gamblers respond to these events in asymmetric fashion: they appeal to the law of averages to bring losing streaks to a speedy end. And they appeal to that same law of averages to suspend itself so that winning streaks will go on and on. The law of averages hears neither appeal. The last sequence of throws of the dice conveys absolutely no information about what the next throw will bring. Cards, coins, dice, and roulette wheels have no memory." (Peter L Bernstein, "Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk", 1996)

"The dice and the roulette wheel, along with the stock market and the bond market, are natural laboratories for the study of risk because they lend themselves so readily to quantification; their language is the language of numbers." (Peter L Bernstein, "Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk", 1996)

"However, random walk theory also tells us that the chance that the balance never returns to zero - that is, that H stays in the lead for ever - is 0. This is the sense in which the 'law of averages' is true. If you wait long enough, then almost surely the numbers of heads and tails will even out. But this fact carries no implications about improving your chances of winning, if you're betting on whether H or T turns up. The probabilities are unchanged, and you don't know how long the 'long run' is going to be. Usually it is very long indeed." (Ian Stewart, The Magical Maze: Seeing the world through mathematical eyes", 1997)

"In everyday language, a fair coin is called random, but not a coin that shows head more often than tail. A coin that keeps a memory of its own record of heads and tails is viewed as even less random. This mental picture is present in the term random walk, especially as used in finance." (Benoit B Mandelbrot, "Fractals and Scaling in Finance: Discontinuity, concentration, risk", 1997)

"The basis of many misconceptions about probability is a belief in something usually referred to as 'the law of averages', which alleges that any unevenness in random events gets ironed out in the long run. For example, if a tossed coin keeps coming up heads, then it is widely believed that at some stage there will be a predominance of tails to balance things out." (Ian Stewart, The Magical Maze: Seeing the world through mathematical eyes", 1997)

"Sequences of random numbers also inevitably display certain regularities. […] The trouble is, just as no real die, coin, or roulette wheel is ever likely to be perfectly fair, no numerical recipe produces truly random numbers. The mere existence of a formula suggests some sort of predictability or pattern." (Ivars Peterson, "The Jungles of Randomness: A Mathematical Safari", 1998)

"For several centuries that we know of, and probably for many centuries before that, flipping a coin (or rolling a die) has been the epitome of probability, the paradigm of randomness. You flip the coin (or roll the die), and nobody can accurately predict how it will fall. Nor can the most powerful computer predict correctly how it will fall, if it is flipped energetically enough. This is why cards, dice, and other gambling aids crop up so often in literature both directly and as metaphors. No doubt it is also the reason for the (perhaps excessive) popularity of gambling as entertainment. If anyone had any idea what numbers the lottery would show, or where the roulette ball will land, the whole industry would be a dead duck." (David Stirzaker, "Probability and Random Variables: A Beginner’s Guide", 1999)

"From the moment we first roll a die in a children’s board game, or pick a card (any card), we start to learn what probability is. But even as adults, it is not easy to tell what it is, in the general way." (David Stirzaker, "Probability and Random Variables: A Beginner’s Guide", 1999)

"[...] the chance of a head (or a double six) is just a chance. The whole point of probability is to discuss uncertain eventualities before they occur. After this event, things are completely different. As the simplest illustration of this, note that even though we agree that if we flip a coin and roll two dice then the chance of a head is greater than the chance of a double six, nevertheless it may turn out that the coin shows a tail when the dice show a double six." (David Stirzaker, "Probability and Random Variables: A Beginner’s Guide", 1999)

"We cannot really have a perfectly shuffled pack of perfect cards; this ‘collection of equally likely hands’ is actually a fiction. We create the idea, and then use the rules of arithmetic to calculate the required chances. This is characteristic of all mathematics, which concerns itself only with rules defining the behaviour of entities which are themselves undefined (such as ‘numbers’ or ‘points’)." (David Stirzaker, "Probability and Random Variables: A Beginner’s Guide", 1999)

"If sinks, sources, saddles, and limit cycles are coins landing heads or tails, then the exceptions are a coin landing on edge. Yes, it might happen, in theory; but no, it doesn't, in practice." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"It's a bit like having a theory about coins that move in space, but only being able to measure their state by interrupting them with a table. We hypothesize that the coin may be able to revolve in space, a state that is neither ‘heads’ nor ‘tails’ but a kind of mixture. Our experimental proof is that when you stick a table in, you get heads half the time and tails the other half - randomly. This is by no means a perfect analogy with standard quantum theory - a revolving coin is not exactly in a superposition of heads and tails - but it captures some of the flavour." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"The chance events due to deterministic chaos, on the other hand, occur even within a closed system determined by immutable laws. Our most cherished examples of chance - dice, roulette, coin-tossing – seem closer to chaos than to the whims of outside events. So, in this revised sense, dice are a good metaphor for chance after all. It's just that we've refined our concept of randomness. Indeed, the deterministic but possibly chaotic stripes of phase space may be the true source of probability." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"The possibility of translating uncertainties into risks is much more restricted in the propensity view. Propensities are properties of an object, such as the physical symmetry of a die. If a die is constructed to be perfectly symmetrical, then the probability of rolling a six is 1 in 6. The reference to a physical design, mechanism, or trait that determines the risk of an event is the essence of the propensity interpretation of probability. Note how propensity differs from the subjective interpretation: It is not sufficient that someone’s subjective probabilities about the outcomes of a die roll are coherent, that is, that they satisfy the laws of probability. What matters is the die’s design. If the design is not known, there are no probabilities." (Gerd Gigerenzer, "Calculated Risks: How to know when numbers deceive you", 2002)

"Randomness is a difficult notion for people to accept. When events come in clusters and streaks, people look for explanations and patterns. They refuse to believe that such patterns - which frequently occur in random data - could equally well be derived from tossing a coin. So it is in the stock market as well." (Didier Sornette, "Why Stock Markets Crash: Critical events in complex financial systems", 2003)

"Suppose that while flipping a coin, a small black hole passed by and ate the coin. As long as we got to see the coin, the probabilities of heads and tails would add to one, but the possibility of a coin disappearing altogether into a black hole would have to be included. Once the coin crosses the event horizon of the black hole, it simply does not meaningfully exist in our universe anymore. Can we simply adjust our probabilistic interpretation to accommodate this outcome? Will we ever encounter negative probabilities?" (Leon M Lederman & Christopher T Hill, "Symmetry and the Beautiful Universe", 2004)

"A bit involves both probability and an experiment that decides a binary or yes-no question. Consider flipping a coin. One bit of in-formation is what we learn from the flip of a fair coin. With an unfair or biased coin the odds are other than even because either heads or tails is more likely to appear after the flip. We learn less from flipping the biased coin because there is less surprise in the outcome on average. Shannon's bit-based concept of entropy is just the average information of the experiment. What we gain in information from the coin flip we lose in uncertainty or entropy." (Bart Kosko, "Noise", 2006)

"Random number generators do not always need to be symmetrical. This misconception of assuming equal likelihood for each outcome is fostered in a restricted learning environment, where learners see only such situations (that is, dice, coins and spinners). It is therefore very important for learners to be aware of situations where the different outcomes are not equally likely (as with the drawing-pins example)." (Alan Graham, "Developing Thinking in Statistics", 2006)

"The objectivist view is that probabilities are real aspects of the universe - propensities of objects to behave in certain ways - rather than being just descriptions of an observer’s degree of belief. For example, the fact that a fair coin comes up heads with probability 0.5 is a propensity of the coin itself. In this view, frequentist measurements are attempts to observe these propensities. Most physicists agree that quantum phenomena are objectively probabilistic, but uncertainty at the macroscopic scale - e.g., in coin tossing - usually arises from ignorance of initial conditions and does not seem consistent with the propensity view." (Stuart J Russell & Peter Norvig, "Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach", 2010)

"A very different - and very incorrect - argument is that successes must be balanced by failures (and failures by successes) so that things average out. Every coin flip that lands heads makes tails more likely. Every red at roulette makes black more likely. […] These beliefs are all incorrect. Good luck will certainly not continue indefinitely, but do not assume that good luck makes bad luck more likely, or vice versa." (Gary Smith, "Standard Deviations", 2014)

"Remember that even random coin flips can yield striking, even stunning, patterns that mean nothing at all. When someone shows you a pattern, no matter how impressive the person’s credentials, consider the possibility that the pattern is just a coincidence. Ask why, not what. No matter what the pattern, the question is: Why should we expect to find this pattern?" (Gary Smith, "Standard Deviations", 2014)

"We are seduced by patterns and we want explanations for these patterns. When we see a string of successes, we think that a hot hand has made success more likely. If we see a string of failures, we think a cold hand has made failure more likely. It is easy to dismiss such theories when they involve coin flips, but it is not so easy with humans. We surely have emotions and ailments that can cause our abilities to go up and down. The question is whether these fluctuations are important or trivial." (Gary Smith, "Standard Deviations", 2014)

"When statisticians, trained in math and probability theory, try to assess likely outcomes, they demand a plethora of data points. Even then, they recognize that unless it’s a very simple and controlled action such as flipping a coin, unforeseen variables can exert significant influence." (Zachary Karabell, "The Leading Indicators: A short history of the numbers that rule our world", 2014)

Statistical Tools II: Dices

"God's dice always have a lucky roll." (Sophocles, 5th century BC)

"[...] to repeat the same throw ten thousand times with the dice would be impossible, whereas to make it once or twice is comparatively easy." (Aristotle, "On the Heavens", cca. 350 BC)

"Four dice are cast and a Venus throw results-that is chance; but do you think it would be chance, too, if in one hundred casts you made one hundred Venus throws? It is possible for paints flung at rando mon a canvas to form the outline of a face; but do you imagine that an accidental scattering of pigments could produce the beautiful portrait of Venus of Cos? Suppose that a hog should form a letter 'A' on the ground with its snout; is that a reason for believing that it could write out Ennius's poem The Andromche?" (Marcus Tullius Cicero, cca. 44 BC)

"Is it possible, then, for any man to apprehend in advance occurrences for which no cause or reason can be assigned? What do we mean when we employ such terms as luck, fortune, accident, turn of the die, except that we are seeking to describe events which happened and came to pass in such a way that they either might not have happened and come to pass at all or might have happened and come to pass under quite different circumstances? How then can an event be anticipated and predicted which occurs fortuitously and as a result of blind chance and of the spinning of Fortune's wheel?" (Marcus Tullius Cicero, "De Divinatione", 44 BC)

"The law of large numbers is noted in events which are attributed to pure chance since we do not know their causes or because they are too complicated. Thus, games, in which the circumstances determining the occurrence of a certain card or certain number of points on a die infinitely vary, can not be subjected to any calculus. If the series of trials is continued for a long time, the different outcomes nevertheless appear in constant ratios. Then, if calculations according to the rules of a game are possible, the respective probabilities of eventual outcomes conform to the known Jakob Bernoulli theorem. However, in most problems of contingency a prior determination of chances of the various events is impossible and, on the contrary, they are calculated from the observed result." (Siméon-Denis Poisson, "Researches into the Probabilities of Judgements in Criminal and Civil Cases", 1837)

"A perfect equity adjusts its balance in all parts of life. The dice of God are always loaded. The world looks like a multiplication-table, or a mathematical equation, which, turn it how you will, balances itself." (Ralph W Emerson, "Compensation", 1841)

"Without doubt, matter is unlimited in extent, and, in this sense, infinite; and the forces of Nature mould it into an innumerable number of worlds. Would it be at all astonishing if, from the universal dice-box, out of an innumberable number of throws, there should be thrown out one world infinitely perfect? Nay, does not the calculus of probabilities prove to us that one such world out of an infinite number, must be produced of necessity?" (Philippe Buchez & William B Greene, "Remarks on the Science of History: Followed by an a priori autobiography", 1849)

"As an instrument for selecting at random, I have found nothing superior to dice. It is most tedious to shuffle cards thoroughly be- tween each successive draw, and the method of mixing and stirring up marked balls in a bag is more tedious still. A teetotum or some form of roulette is preferable to these, but dice are better than all. When they are shaken and tossed in a basket, they hurtle so variously against one another and against the ribs of the basket-work that they tumble wildly about, and their positions at the outset afford no perceptible clue to what they will be after even a single good shake and toss." (Francis Galton, Nature vol. 42, 1890) 

"A throw of the dice will never abolish chance." (Stéphane Mallarmé, 1897)

"If the world may be thought of as a certain definite quantity of force and as a certain definite number of centers of force—and every other representation remains indefinite and therefore useless—it follows that, in the great dice game of existence, it must pass through calculable number of combinations. In infinite time, every possible combination would at some time or another be realized; more: it would be realized an infinite number of times. And since between every combination and its next recurrence all other possible combinations would have to take place, and each of these combination conditions of the entire sequence of combinations in the same series, a circular movement of absolutely identical series is thus demonstrated: the world as a circular movement that has already repeated itself infinitely often and plays its game in infinitum. This conception is not simply a mechanistic conception; for if it were that, it would not condition an infinite recurrence of identical cases, but a final state. Because the world has not reached this, mechanistic theory must be considered an imperfect and merely provisional hypothesis." (Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Will to Power", [notes written 1883-1888] 1901)

"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice." (Albert Einstein, [Letter to Max Born] 1926)

"It seems hard to sneak a look at God's cards. But that He plays dice and uses 'telepathic' methods [...] is something that I cannot believe for a single moment." (Albert Einstein, [Letter to Cornel Lanczos] 1942)

"You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world that objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. [...] Even the great initial success of the quantum theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility. No doubt the day will come when we will see whose instinctive attitude was the correct one." (Albert Einstein, [Letter to Max Born] 1944)

"If God has made the world a perfect mechanism, He has at least conceded so much to our imperfect intellect that in order to predict little parts of it, we need not solve innumerable differential equations, but can use dice with fair success." (Max Born, "Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist", 1949)

"In the game of heads and tails, if head comes up a hundred times in a row then this appears to us extraordinary, because after dividing the nearly infinite number of combinations that can arise in a hundred throws into regular sequences, or those in which we observe a rule that is easy to grasp, and into irregular sequences, the latter are incomparably more numerous." (Pierre-Simon Laplace, "A Philosophical Essay on Probability Theories", 1951)

"The picture of scientific method drafted by modern philosophy is very different from traditional conceptions. Gone is the ideal of a universe whose course follows strict rules, a predetermined cosmos that unwinds itself like an unwinding clock. Gone is the ideal of the scientist who knows the absolute truth. The happenings of nature are like rolling dice rather than like revolving stars; they are controlled by probability laws, not by causality, and the scientist resembles a gambler more than a prophet. He can tell you only his best posits - he never knows beforehand whether they will come true. He is a better gambler, though, than the man at the green table, because his statistical methods are superior. And his goal is staked higher - the goal of foretelling the rolling dice of the cosmos. If he is asked why he follows his methods, with what title he makes his predictions, he cannot answer that he has an irrefutable knowledge of the future; he can only lay his best bets. But he can prove that they are best bets, that making them is the best he can do - and if a man does his best, what else can you ask of him?" (Hans Reichenbach, "The Rise of Scientific Philosophy", 1951)

"We must emphasize that such terms as 'select at random', 'choose at random', and the like, always mean that some mechanical device, such as coins, cards, dice, or tables of random numbers, is used." (Frederick Mosteller et al, "Principles of Sampling", Journal of the American Statistical Association Vol. 49 (265), 1954)

"Consideration of particle emission from black holes would seem to suggest that God not only plays dice, but also sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen." (Stephen Hawking, "The Quantum Mechanics of Black Holes", Scientific American, 1977)

"Not only does God play dice with the world - He does not let us see what He has rolled." (Stanisław Lem, "Imaginary Magnitude", 1981)

"Specialists [...] are slowly coming to the realization that the universe is biased and leans to the left. [...] Many scientists have come to believe that this odd state of affairs has somethittg to do with the weak nuclear force. It seems that the weak force tends to impart a left-handed spin to electrons, and this effect may bias some kinds of molecular synthesis to the left. [...] But scientific speculation of this ilk leads to a deeper question. Was it purely a matter of chance that left-handedness became the preferred direction in our universe, or is there some reason behind it? Did the sinister bent of existence that scientists have observed stem from a roll of the dice, or is God a semiambidextrous southpaw?" (Malcolm W Browne, 1986)

"[In statistics] you have the fact that the concepts are not very clean. The idea of probability, of randomness, is not a clean mathematical idea. You cannot produce random numbers mathematically. They can only be produced by things like tossing dice or spinning a roulette wheel. With a formula, any formula, the number you get would be predictable and therefore not random. So as a statistician you have to rely on some conception of a world where things happen in some way at random, a conception which mathematicians don’t have." (Lucien LeCam, [interview] 1988)

"Combinatorics, a sort of glorified dice-throwing." (Robert Kanigel, "The Man Who Knew Infinity: A Life of the Genius Ramanujan", 1991)

"Nature is never perfectly symmetric. Nature's circles always have tiny dents and bumps. There are always tiny fluctuations, such as the thermal vibration of molecules. These tiny imperfections load Nature's dice in favour of one or other of the set of possible effects that the mathematics of perfect symmetry considers to be equally possible." (Ian Stewart & Martin Golubitsky, "Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer?", 1992)

"It is true that every aspect of the roll of dice may be suspect: the dice themselves, the form and texture of the surface, the person throwing them. If we push the analysis to its extreme, we may even wonder what chance has to do with it at all. Neither the course of the dice nor their rebounds rely on chance; they are governed by the strict determinism of rational mechanics. Billiards is based on the same principles, and it has never been considered a game of chance. So in the final analysis, chance lies in the clumsiness, the inexperience, or the naiveté of the thrower - or in the eye of the observer." (Ivar Ekeland, "The Broken Dice, and Other Mathematical Tales of Chance", 1993)

"Whether we shuffle cards or roll dice, chance is only a result of our human lack of deftness: we don't have enough control to immobilize a die at will or to individually direct the cards in a deck. The comparison is an important one nonetheless, and highlights the limits of this method of creating chance - it doesn't matter who rolls the dice, but we wouldn't let just anyone shuffle the cards." (Ivar Ekeland, "The Broken Dice, and Other Mathematical Tales of Chance", 1993)

"So Einstein was wrong when he said, 'God does not play dice'. Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that he sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen." (Stephen Hawking, 1994)

"Yet, Einstein's theories are also not the last word: quantum theory and relativity are inconsistent, and Einstein himself, proclaiming that 'God does not play dice!', rejected the basic reliance of quantum theory on chance events, and looked forward to a theory which would be deterministic. Recent experiments suggest that this view of Einstein's conflicts with his other deeply held beliefs about the nature of the physical universe. Certain it is that somewhere, beyond physicists' current horizons, are even more powerful theories of how the world is." (David Wells, "You Are a Mathematician: A wise and witty introduction to the joy of numbers", 1995)

"In systems such as contemporary society, evolution is always a promise and devolution is always a threat. No system comes with a guarantee of ongoing evolution. The challenge is real. To ignore it is to play dice with all we have. To accept it is not to play God - it is to become an instrument of whatever divine purpose infuses the universe." (Ervin László, "The systems view of the world", 1996)

"[...] an apparently random universe could be obeying every whim of a deterministic deity who chooses how the dice roll; a universe that has obeyed perfect mathematical laws for the last ten billion years could suddenly start to play truly random dice. So the distinction is about how we model the system, and what point of view seems most useful, rather than about any inherent feature of the system itself." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 1997)

"Chaos teaches us that anybody, God or cat, can play dice deterministically, while the naïve onlooker imagines that something random is going on." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 1997)

"Indeed a deterministic die behaves very much as if it has six attractors, the steady states corresponding to its six faces, all of whose basins are intertwined. For technical reasons that can't quite be true, but it is true that deterministic systems with intertwined basins are wonderful substitutes for dice; in fact they're super-dice, behaving even more ‘randomly’ - apparently - than ordinary dice. Super-dice are so chaotic that they are uncomputable. Even if you know the equations for the system perfectly, then given an initial state, you cannot calculate which attractor it will end up on. The tiniest error of approximation – and there will always be such an error - will change the answer completely." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 1997)

"Perhaps God can play dice, and create a universe of complete law and order, in the same breath." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 1997)

"Simple laws may not produce simple behaviour. Deterministic laws can produce behaviour that appears random. Order can breed its own kind of chaos. The question is not so much whether God plays dice, but how God plays dice.", 1997)

"The chance events due to deterministic chaos, on the other hand, occur even within a closed system determined by immutable laws. Our most cherished examples of chance - dice, roulette, coin-tossing - seem closer to chaos than to the whims of outside events. So, in this revised sense, dice are a good metaphor for chance after all. It's just that we've refined our concept of randomness. Indeed, the deterministic but possibly chaotic stripes of phase space may be the true source of probability." (Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 1997)

"From the moment we first roll a die in a children’s board game, or pick a card (any card), we start to learn what probability is. But even as adults, it is not easy to tell what it is, in the general way." (David Stirzaker, "Probability and Random Variables: A Beginner’s Guide", 1999)

"[...] the chance of a head (or a double six) is just a chance. The whole point of probability is to discuss uncertain eventualities before they occur. After this event, things are completely different. As the simplest illustration of this, note that even though we agree that if we ¯ip a coin and roll two dice then the chance of a head is greater than the chance of a double six, nevertheless it may turn out that the coin shows a tail when the dice show a double six." (David Stirzaker, "Probability and Random Variables: A Beginner’s Guide", 1999)

"[…] we would like to observe that the butterfly effect lies at the root of many events which we call random. The final result of throwing a dice depends on the position of the hand throwing it, on the air resistance, on the base that the die falls on, and on many other factors. The result appears random because we are not able to take into account all of these factors with sufficient accuracy. Even the tiniest bump on the table and the most imperceptible move of the wrist affect the position in which the die finally lands. It would be reasonable to assume that chaos lies at the root of all random phenomena." (Iwo Bialynicki-Birula & Iwona Bialynicka-Birula, "Modeling Reality: How Computers Mirror Life", 2004)

"Random number generators do not always need to be symmetrical. This misconception of assuming equal likelihood for each outcome is fostered in a restricted learning environment, where learners see only such situations (that is, dice, coins and spinners). It is therefore very important for learners to be aware of situations where the different outcomes are not equally likely (as with the drawing-pins example)." (Alan Graham, "Developing Thinking in Statistics", 2006)

"There is no such thing as randomness. No one who could detect every force operating on a pair of dice would ever play dice games, because there would never be any doubt about the outcome. The randomness, such as it is, applies to our ignorance of the possible outcomes. It doesn’t apply to the outcomes themselves. They are 100% determined and are not random in the slightest. Scientists have become so confused by this that they now imagine that things really do happen randomly, i.e. for no reason at all." (Thomas Stark, "God Is Mathematics: The Proofs of the Eternal Existence of Mathematics", 2018)

"God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on with the prime numbers." (Paul Erdos)

"God plays dice with the universe, but they’re loaded dice. And the main objective of physics now is to find out by what rules were they loaded and how can we use them for our own ends." (Joseph Ford)

"I shall never believe that God plays dice with the world." (Albert Einstein)

"The perfect die does not lose its usefulness or justification by the fact that real dice fail to live up to it." (William Feller)

19 February 2020

Harold Chestnut - Collected Quotes

"A model is a qualitative or quantitative representation of a process or endeavor that shows the effects of those factors which are significant for the purposes being considered. A model may be pictorial, descriptive, qualitative, or generally approximate in nature; or it may be mathematical and quantitative in nature and reasonably precise. It is important that effective means for modeling be understood such as analog, stochastic, procedural, scheduling, flow chart, schematic, and block diagrams." (Harold Chestnut, "Systems Engineering Tools", 1965)

"As is used in connection with systems engineering, a model is a qualitative or quantitative representation of a process or endeavor that shows the effects of those factors which are significant for the purposes being considered. Modeling is the process of making a model. Although the model may not represent the actual phenomenon in all respects, it does describe the essential inputs, outputs, and internal characteristics, as well as provide an indication of environmental conditions similar to those of actual equipment." (Harold Chestnut, "Systems Engineering Tools", 1965)

"Each system is unique. However, by capitalizing on similarities we can reduce the time, effort, and cost for some or all of them, and thus the quest for formalized design methods becomes more attractive." (Harold Chestnut, "Systems Engineering Tools", 1965)

"Formulating and structuring a system provide methods for relating (1) what the system consists of in the mind of the persons or group desiring it; (2)what it means in terms of the persons or group designing and building it; and (3) in terms of the persons or groups operating, using and servicing it. They provide a set of 'reasonable"'parts and methods of relating them so that the many persons working on the system can understand the whole in sufficient detail for their purposes, and their particular parts in explicit detail so that they may contribute their best efforts to the extent required. A further purpose of system formulation is to recognize the magnitude of the job, including the possible pitfalls." (Harold Chestnut, "Systems Engineering Tools", 1965)

"Formulating consists of determining the system inputs, outputs, requirements, objectives, constraints. Structuring the system provides one or more methods of organizing the solution, the method of operation, the selection of parts, and the nature of their performance requirements. It is evident that the processes of formulating a system and structuring it are strongly related." (Harold Chestnut, "Systems Engineering Tools", 1965)

"From a pessimistic viewpoint, it can be stated that there is no good general way of structuring a system. However, from an optimistic point of view one can say that a number of good ways of structuring systems exist and that some are better than others for any particular system. In this and the following sections, there will be a presentation of a number of structuring approaches that have merit and have been employed successfully, including functional structuring, equipment structuring, and use of various coordinate systems." (Harold Chestnut, "Systems Engineering Tools", 1965)

"The process of formulating and structuring a system are important and creative, since they provide and organize the information, which each system. "establishes the number of objectives and the balance between them which will be optimized". Furthermore, they help identify and define the system parts. Furthermore, they help identify and define the system parts which make up its 'diverse, specialized structures and subfunctions'." (Harold Chestnut, "Systems Engineering Tools", 1965)

"The Systems engineering method recognizes each system is an integrated whole even though composed of diverse, specialized structures and sub-functions. It further recognizes that any system has a number of objectives and that the balance between them may differ widely from system to system. The methods seek to optimize the overall system functions according to the weighted objectives and to achieve maximum compatibility of its parts." (Harold Chestnut, "Systems Engineering Tools", 1965)

"The term closed loop-learning process refers to the idea that one learns by determining what s desired and comparing what is actually taking place as measured at the process and feedback for comparison. The difference between what is desired and what is taking place provides an error indication which is used to develop a signal to the process being controlled." (Harold Chestnut, 1984)

23 July 2019

On Complex Numbers IIX

"There seems to me to be something analogous to polarized intensity in the pure imaginary part; and to unpolarized energy (indifferent to direction) in the real part of a quaternion: and thus we have some slight glimpse of a future Calculus of Polarities. This is certainly very vague […]" (Sir William R Hamilton, "On Quaternions; or on a new System of Imaginaries in Algebra", 1844) 

"Those who can, in common algebra, find a square root of -1, will be at no loss to find a fourth dimension in space in which ABC may become ABCD: or, if they cannot find it, they have but to imagine it, and call it an impossible dimension, subject to all the laws of the three we find possible. And just as √-1 in common algebra, gives all its significant combinations true, so would it be with any number of dimensions of space which the speculator might choose to call into impossible existence." (Augustus De Morgan, "Trigonometry and Double Algebra", 1849)

“The conception of the inconceivable [imaginary], this measurement of what not only does not, but cannot exist, is one of the finest achievements of the human intellect. No one can deny that such imaginings are indeed imaginary. But they lead to results grander than any which flow from the imagination of the poet. The imaginary calculus is one of the master keys to physical science. These realms of the inconceivable afford in many places our only mode of passage to the domains of positive knowledge. Light itself lay in darkness until this imaginary calculus threw light upon light. And in all modern researches into electricity, magnetism, and heat, and other subtile physical inquiries, these are the most powerful instruments.” (Thomas Hill, “The Imagination in Mathematics”, North American Review Vol. 85, 1857)

“When we consider that the whole of geometry rests ultimately on axioms which derive their validity from the nature of our intuitive faculty, we seem well justified in questioning the sense of imaginary forms, since we attribute to them properties which not infrequently contradict all our intuitions.” (Gottlob Frege, “On a Geometrical Representation of Imaginary forms in the Plane”, 1873) 

“[…] with few exceptions all the operations and concepts that occur in the case of real numbers can indeed be carried over unchanged to complex ones. However, the concept of being greater cannot very well be applied to complex numbers. In the case of integration, too, there appear differences which rest on the multplicity of possible paths of integration when we are dealing with complex variables. Nevertheless, the large extent to which imaginary forms conform to the same laws as real ones justifies the introduction of imaginary forms into geometry.” (Gottlob Frege, “On a Geometrical Representation of Imaginary forms in the Plane”, 1873) 

“When we consider complex numbers and their geometrical representation, we leave the field of the original concept of quantity, as contained especially in the quantities of Euclidean geometry: its lines, surfaces and volumes. According to the old conception, length appears as something material which fills the straight line between its end points and at the same time prevents another thing from penetrating into its space by its rigidity. In adding quantities, we are therefore forced to place one quantity against another. Something similar holds for surfaces and solid contents. The introduction of negative quantities made a dent in this conception, and imaginary quantities made it completely impossible. Now all that matters is the point of origin and the end point; whether there is a continuous line between them, and if so which, appears to make no difference whatsoever; the idea of filling space has been completely lost. All that has remained is certain general properties of addition, which now emerge as the essential characteristic marks of quantity. The concept has thus gradually freed itself from intuition and made itself independent. This is quite unobjectionable, especially since its earlier intuitive character was at bottom mere appearance. Bounded straight lines and planes enclosed by curves can certainly be intuited, but what is quantitative about them, what is common to lengths and surfaces, escapes our intuition.” (Gottlob Frege, “Methods of Calculation based on an Extension of the Concept of Quantity”, 1874)

"The discovery of Minkowski […] is to be found […] in the fact of his recognition that the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the theory of relativity, in its most essential formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. In order to give due prominence to this relationship, however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary magnitude, √-1*ct, proportional to it. Under these conditions, the natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same role as the three space-coordinates. Formally, these four co-ordinates correspond exactly to the three space co-ordinates in Euclidean geometry." (Albert Einstein,"Relativity: The Special and General Theory", 1920) 

"As an operation, multiplication by i x i has the same effect as multiplication by -1; multiplication by i has the same effect as a rotation by a right angle, and these interpretations […] are consistent. […] Although the interpretation by means of rotations proves nothing, it may suggest that there is no occasion for anyone to muddle himself into a state of mystic wonderment over nothing about the grossly misnamed ‘imaginaries’." (Eric T Bell, "Gauss, the Prince of Mathematicians", 1956)

"How are we to explain the contrast between the matter-of-fact way in which √-1 and other imaginary numbers are accepted today and the great difficulty they posed for learned mathematicians when they first appeared on the scene? One possibility is that mathematical intuitions have evolved over the centuries and people are generally more willing to see mathematics as a matter of manipulating symbols according to rules and are less insistent on interpreting all symbols as representative of one or another aspect of physical reality. Another, less self-congratulatory possibility is that most of us are content to follow the computational rules we are taught and do not give a lot of thought to rationales." (Raymond S Nickerson, "Mathematical Reasoning: Patterns, Problems, Conjectures, and Proofs", 2009)

 "All these questions he [the master?] does not pose. So we have to ask them: is the ‘Ring I’ a trap to catch the master or is the ‘Ring I’ a vessel of understanding? In quantum theory it specifies a formula which includes the irrational in a symbol of totality, in a holistic ‘cosmogramm’. But the formula has a catch. If one squares i = √-1, although a negative, one obtains a rationally understandable negative number -1. So one can make the irrational disappear through a slight of hand. This formula does not correspond to reality because the irrational that we call the collective unconscious or the objective psyche can never be rational. It remains always creatively spontaneous, not predictable, not manipulatable. Each holistic formula is in that sense also a trap, because it brings about the illusion that one has understood the whole." (Marie Louise von Franz, "Reflexionen zum ‘Ring I’")

02 June 2019

What is Mathematics not? - Part IV

"Mathematics is not placid, static and eternal. […] Most mathematicians are happy to make use of those axioms in their proofs, although others do not, exploring instead so-called intuitionist logic or constructivist mathematics. Mathematics is not a single monolithic structure of absolute truth!" (Gregory J Chaitin, "A century of controversy over the foundations of mathematics", 2000)

"It is sometimes said that mathematics is not an experimental subject. This is not true! Mathematicians often use the evidence of lots of examples to help form a conjecture, and this is an experimental approach. Having formed a conjecture about what might be true, the next task is to try to prove it." (George M Phillips, "Mathematics Is Not a Spectator Sport", 2000)

"Mathematics is not monolithic in its general subject matter. There is no such thing as the geometry or the set theory or the formal logic. Rather, there are mutually inconsistent versions of geometry, set theory, logic, and so on. Each version forms a distinct and internally consistent subject matter." (George Lakoff & Rafael E Nuñez, "Where Mathematics Come From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being, 2000)

"Mathematics is not just about numbers. As well as numbers, modern mathematics also looks at the relations between them. The passage from pure numerology to this new vision has derived from the realization that the most profound meaning is not in the numbers but in the relations between them. Mathematical investigation is precisely the exploration and the study of the different possible relations; some of them find a concrete and immediate application in the environment in which they are immersed, others just ‘live’ in the minds of those that conceive them." (Cristoforo S Bertuglia & Franco Vaio, "Nonlinearity, Chaos and Complexity: The Dynamics of Natural and Social Systems", 2003)

"Contrary to popular belief, mathematics is not a universal language. Rather, mathematics is based on a strict set of definitions and rules that have been instated and to which meaning has been given." (Christopher Tremblay, "Mathematics for Game Developers", 2004)

"Mathematics is not about abstract entities alone but is about relation of abstract entities with real entities. […] Adequacy relations between abstract and real entities provide space or opportunity where mathematical and logical thought operates parsimoniously."  (Navjyoti Singh, "Classical Indian Mathematical Thought", 2005)

"Mathematics is not a matter of ‘anything goes,’ and every mathematician is guided by explicit or unspoken assumptions as to what counts as legitimate – whether we choose to view these assumptions as the product of birth, experience, indoctrination, tradition, or philosophy. At the same time, mathematicians are primarily problem solvers and theory builders, and answer first and foremost to the internal exigencies of their subject." (Jeremy Avigad, "Methodology and Metaphysics in the Development of Dedekind’s Theory of Ideals", 2006)

"Logic moves in one direction, the direction of clarity, coherence, and structure. Ambiguity moves in the other direction, that of fluidity, openness, and release. Mathematics moves back and forth between these two poles. Mathematics is not a fixed, static entity that can be structured definitively. It is dynamic, alive: its dynamism a function of the relationship between the two poles that have been described above. It is the interactions between these different aspects that give mathematics its power." (William Byers, "How Mathematicians Think", 2007)

"[…] mathematics is not only to teach the algorithms and skills of mathematics - which we will agree are very important - but also to teach for understanding, with an emphasis on reasoning." (Alfred S Posamentier et al, "Exemplary Practices for Secondary Math Teachers", 2007)

"[…] mathematics is not only an essential tool for science and technology, but also for humanities, in particular for art. And out of art we may say that mathematics gains one of its main reasons for developing and changing in time. Mathematics contributes to our way of conceiving and shaping the world we live in, while art develops the means to harmonize, describe, represent aesthetically - or even to transcend and transfigure -  the world of our sensations and perception." (Mauro Francaviglia, "Art and Mathematics", 2008)

"Mathematics is not an inevitable body of knowledge. Understanding it and doing it requires a consciousness of the ‘rules’ and the awareness that they are rules or conventions. Such awareness is particularly needed at the early stages where we often act as if there is nothing to be surprised about." (Bill Barton, "The Language of Mathematics: Telling Mathematical Tales", 2008)

09 May 2019

On Proofs (2000 - 2009)

"It is through proof that human mathematicians transcend the limitations of their humanity. Proofs link human mathematicians to truths of the universe. In the romance, proofs are discoveries of those truths." (George Lakoff & Rafael E Nuñez, "Where Mathematics Come From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being, 2000)

"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)

"A felicitous but unproved conjecture may be of much more consequence for mathematics than the proof of many a respectable theorem." (Atle Selberg, 2001)

"By common consensus in the mathematical world, a good proof displays three essential characteristics: a good proof is (1) convincing, (2) surveyable, and (3) formalizable. The first requirement means simply that most mathematicians believe it when they see it. […] Most mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics demand more than mere plausibility, or even belief. A proof must be able to be understood, studied, communicated, and verified by rational analysis. In short, it must be surveyable. Finally, formalizability means we can always find a suitable formal system in which an informal proof can be embedded and fleshed out into a formal proof." (John L Casti, "Mathematical Mountaintops: The Five Most Famous Problems of All Time", 2001)

"Generally speaking, there are three grades of proof in mathematics. The first, or highest quality type of proof, is one that incorporates why and how the result is true, not simply that it is so. […] Second-grade proofs content themselves with showing that their   conclusion is true, by relying on the law of the excluded middle. Thus, they assume that the conclusion they want to demonstrate is false and then derive a contradiction from this assumption. In polite company, these are often termed 'nonconstructive proofs', since they lack the how and why. […] Finally, there is the third order, or lowest grade, of proof. In these situations, the idea of proof degenerates into mere verification, in which a (usually) large number of cases are considered separately and verified, one by one, very often by a computer." (John L Casti, "Mathematical Mountaintops: The Five Most Famous Problems of All Time", 2001)

"Somehow mathematicians seem to long for more than just results from their proofs; they want insight." (John L Casti, "Mathematical Mountaintops: The Five Most Famous Problems of All Time", 2001)

"That a proof must be convincing is part of the anthropology of mathematics, providing the key to understanding mathematics as a human activity. We invoke the logic of mathematics when we demand that every informal proof be capable of being formalized within the confines of a definite formal system. Finally, the epistemology of mathematics comes into play with the requirement that a proof be surveyable. We can't really say that we have created a genuine piece of knowledge unless it can be examined and verified by others; there are no private truths in mathematics." (John L Casti, "Mathematical Mountaintops: The Five Most Famous Problems of All Time", 2001)

"Where we find certainty and truth in mathematics we also find beauty. Great mathematics is characterized by its aesthetics. Mathematicians delight in the elegance, economy of means, and logical inevitability of proof. It is as if the great mathematical truths can be no other way. This light of logic is also reflected back to us in the underlying structures of the physical world through the mathematics of theoretical physics." (F David Peat, "From Certainty to Uncertainty", 2002)

"Proofs should be as short, transparent, elegant, and insightful as possible." (Burkard Polster, "Q.E.D.: Beauty in Mathematical Proof", 2004)

"The concept of proof perhaps marks the true beginning of mathematics as the art of deduction rather than just numerological observation, the point at which mathematical alchemy gave way to mathematical chemistry." (Marcus du Sautoy, "The Music of the Primes", 2004)

"There is a strong parallel between mountain climbing and mathematics research. When first attempts on a summit are made, the struggle is to find any route. Once on the top, other possible routes up may be discerned and sometimes a safer or shorter route can be chosen for the descent or for subsequent ascents. In mathematics the challenge is finding a proof in the first place. Once found, almost any competent mathematician can usually find an alternative often much better and shorter proof. At least in mountaineering we know that the mountain is there and that, if we can find a way up and reach the summit, we shall triumph. In mathematics we do not always know that there is a result, or if the proposition is only a figment of the imagination, let alone whether a proof can be found." (Kathleen Ollerenshaw, "To talk of many things: An autobiography", 2004)

"Mathematicians attempt to justify their claims by proofs. The quest for cast iron rational arguments is the driving force of pure mathematics. Chains of correct deduction from what is known or assumed, lead the mathematician to a conclusion which then enters the established mathematical storehouse." (Tony Crilly, "50 Mathematical Ideas You Really Need to Know", 2007)

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

"Popular accounts of mathematics often stress the discipline’s obsession with certainty, with proof. And mathematicians often tell jokes poking fun at their own insistence on precision. However, the quest for precision is far more than an end in itself. Precision allows one to reason sensibly about objects outside of ordinary experience. It is a tool for exploring possibility: about what might be, as well as what is." (Donal O’Shea, "The Poincaré Conjecture", 2007)

"Mathematicians, then, do not just care about proving theorems: they care about proving interesting, deep, fruitful theorems, by means of elegant, ingenious, explanatory, memorable, or even amusing proofs. If we wish to understand more about the character of mathematical knowledge, we ought to investigate these kinds of evaluative claims made by mathematicians." (Mary Leng ["Mathematical Knowledge", Ed. by Mary Leng, Alexander Paseau and Michael Potter], 2007)

"Why are proofs so important? Suppose our task were to construct a building. We would start with the foundations. In our case these are the axioms or definitions - everything else is built upon them. Each theorem or proposition represents a new level of knowledge and must be firmly anchored to the previous level. We attach the new level to the previous one using a proof. So the theorems and propositions are the new heights of knowledge we achieve, while the proofs are essential as they are the mortar which attaches them to the level below. Without proofs the structure would collapse." (Sidney A Morris, "Topology without Tears", 2007)

"In mathematics, it’s the limitations of a reasoned argument with the tools you have available, and with magic it’s to use your tools and sleight of hand to bring about a certain effect without the audience knowing what you’re doing. [...]When you’re inventing a trick, it’s always possible to have an elephant walk on stage, and while the elephant is in front of you, sneak something under your coat, but that’s not a good trick. Similarly with mathematical proof, it is always possible to bring out the big guns, but then you lose elegance, or your conclusions aren’t very different from your hypotheses, and it’s not a very interesting theorem." (Persi Diaconis, 2008)

"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)

"It can be asserted that a 'proof' [...] is a psychological device for convincing the reader that an assertionis true. However our view in this book is more rigid: a proof is a sequence
of applications of the rules of logic to derive the assertion from the axioms. There is no room for opinion here. The axioms are plain. The rules are rigid. A proof is like a sequence of moves in a game of chess. If the rules are followed, then the proof is correct, otherwise it is not." (Steven G Krantz, "Essentials of Topology with Applications”, 2009)

"[…] proof is the key ingredient of the emotional side of mathematics; proof is the ultimate explanation of why something is true, and a good proof often has a powerful emotional impact, boosting confidence and encouraging further questions ‘why’." (Alexandre V Borovik, "Mathematics under the Microscope: Notes on Cognitive Aspects of Mathematical Practice", 2009)

"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)

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

On Leonhard Euler

"I have been able to solve a few problems of mathematical physics on which the greatest mathematicians since Euler have struggled in va...