On Proofs (2010 - 2019)

"A proof in mathematics is a compelling argument that a proposition holds without exception; a disproof requires only the demonstration of an exception. A mathematical proof does not, in general, establish the empirical truth of whatever is proved. What it establishes is that whatever is proved - usually a theorem - follows logically from the givens, or axioms." (Raymond S Nickerson, "Mathematical Reasoning", 2010)

"A mathematical proof is a watertight argument which begins with information you are given, proceeds by logical argument, and ends with what you are asked to prove." (Sydney A Morris, "Topology without Tears", 2011)

"Once a mathematical result is proven to the satisfaction of the discipline, it doesn’t need to be re-evaluated in the light of new evidence or refuted, unless it contains a mistake. If it was true for Archimedes, then it is true today." (Peter Rowlett, "The Unplanned Impact of Mathematics", Nature, 2011)

"To get a true understanding of the work of mathematicians, and the need for proof, it is important for you to experiment with your own intuitions, to see where they lead, and then to experience the same failures and sense of accomplishment that mathematicians experienced when they obtained the correct results. Through this, it should become clear that, when doing any level of mathematics, the roads to correct solutions are rarely straight, can be quite different, and take patience and persistence to explore." (Alan Sultan & Alice F Artzt, "The Mathematics that every Secondary School Math Teacher Needs to Know", 2011)

"[…] if one has a theory, one needs to be willing to try to prove it wrong as much as one tries to provide that it is right […]" (Lawrence M Krauss et al, A Universe from Nothing, 2013)

"What  brings  us  mathematical  knowledge?  The  carriers  of mathematical knowledge  are  proofs, more  generally  arguments  and constructions,  as embedded  in  larger  contexts. Mathematicians  and teachers  of higher mathematics  know  this,  but  it  should  be  said. Issues  about  competence  and intuition  can be  raised as  well  as  factors  of knowledge  involving  the general  dissemination  of analogical  or inductive  reasoning  or the  specific conveyance  of methods,  approaches  or ways  of thinking.  But  in the  end, what  can be  directly  conveyed  as  knowledge  are  proofs." (Akihiro Kanamori, "Mathematical  Knowledge:  Motley and  Complexity of Proof",  Annals  of  the  Japan Association  for  Philosophy  of  Science Vol. 21, 2013)

"Proof, in fact, is the requirement that makes great problems problematic. Anyone moderately competent can carry out a few calculations, spot an apparent pattern, and distil its essence into a pithy statement. Mathematicians demand more evidence than that: they insist on a complete, logically impeccable proof. Or, if the answer turns out to be negative, a disproof. It isn’t really possible to appreciate the seductive allure of a great problem without appreciating the vital role of proof in the mathematical enterprise. Anyone can make an educated guess. What’s hard is to prove it’s right. Or wrong." (Ian Stewart, "Visions of Infinity", 2013)

"The human mind builds up theories by recognising familiar patterns and glossing over details that are well understood, so that it can concentrate on the new material. In fact it is limited by the amount of new information it can hold at any one time, and the suppression of familiar detail is often essential for a grasp of the total picture. In a written proof, the step-by-step logical deduction is therefore foreshortened where it is already a part of the reader’s basic technique, so that they can comprehend the overall structure more easily." (Ian Stewart & David Tall, "The Foundations of Mathematics" 2nd Ed., 2015)

"The need for overall understanding is not just aesthetic or educational. The human mind tends to make errors: errors of fact, errors of judgement, errors of interpretation. In the step-by-step method we might not notice that one line is not a logical consequence of preceding ones. Within the overall framework, however, if an error leads to a conclusion that does not fit into the total picture, the conflict will alert us to the possibility of a mistake." (Ian Stewart & David Tall, "The Foundations of Mathematics" 2nd Ed., 2015)

"Mathematics is a fascinating discipline that calls for creativity, imagination, and the mastery of rigorous standards of proof." (John Meier & Derek Smith, "Exploring Mathematics: An Engaging Introduction to Proof", 2017)

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)

On Proofs (1950 - 1974)

“We could compare mathematics so formalized to a game of chess in which the symbols correspond to the chessmen; the formulae, to definite positions of the men on the board; the axioms, to the initial positions of the chessmen; the directions for drawing conclusions, to the rules of movement; a proof, to a series of moves which leads from the initial position to a definite configuration of the men.” (Friedrich Waismann, “Introduction to Mathematical Thinking: The Formation of Concepts in Modern Mathematics”, 1951)

“You have to guess the mathematical theorem before you prove it: you have to guess the idea of the proof before you carry through the details. You have to combine observations and follow analogies: you have to try and try again. The result of the mathematician’s creative work is demonstrative reasoning, a proof; but the proof is discovered by plausible reasoning, by guessing” (George Polya, “Mathematics and plausible reasoning” Vol. 1, 1954)

"We speak in terms of ‘acceptance’, ‘confidence’, and ‘probability’, not ‘proof’. If by proof it is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences." (George G Simpson, “Life: An Introduction to Biology”, 1957)

"A mathematical proof, as usually written down, is a sequence of expressions in the state space. But we may also think of the proof as consisting of the sequence of justifications of consecutive proof steps - i.e., the references to axioms, previously-proved theorems, and rules of inference that legitimize the writing down of the proof steps. From this point of view, the proof is a sequence of actions (applications of rules of inference) that, operating initially on the axioms, transform them into the desired theorem." (Herbert A Simon, "The Logic of Heuristic Decision Making", [in "The Logic of Decision and Action"], 1966)

"It is sometimes said of two expositions of one and the same mathematical proof that the one is simpler or more elegant than the other. This is a distinction which has little interest from the point of view of the theory of knowledge; it does not fall within the province of logic, but merely indicates a preference of an aesthetic or pragmatic character." (Karl Popper, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery", 1959)

"The most natural way to give an independence proof is to establish a model with the required properties. This is not the only way to proceed since one can attempt to deal directly and analyze the structure of proofs. However, such an approach to set theoretic questions is unnatural since all our intuition come from our belief in the natural, almost physical model of the mathematical universe." (Paul J Cohen, "Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis", 1966)

"It is characteristic of science that the full explanations are often seized in their essence by the percipient scientist long in advance of any possible proof." (John Desmond Bernal, "The Origin of Life", 1967)

"A diagram is worth a thousand proofs."  (Carl E Linderholm, “Mathematics Made Difficult”, 1971)

"In many cases a dull proof can be supplemented by a geometric analogue so simple and beautiful that the truth of a theorem is almost seen at a glance." (Martin Gardner, "Mathematical Games", Scientific American, 1973)

See also:
Proofs I, II, III, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX
Theorems I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X

On Proofs (1850-1899)

"It is easily seen from a consideration of the nature of demonstration and analysis that there can and must be truths which cannot be reduced by any analysis to identities or to the principle of contradiction but which involve an infinite series of reasons which only God can see through." (Gottfried W Leibniz, "Nouvelles lettres et opuscules inédits", 1857)

"We must never assume that which is incapable of proof.”  (George H Lewes, “The Physiology of Common Life” Vol. 2, 1860)

"Few will deny that even in the first scientific instruction in mathematics the most rigorous method is to be given preference over all others. Especially will every teacher prefer a consistent proof to one which is based on fallacies or proceeds in a vicious circle, indeed it will be morally impossible for the teacher to present a proof of the latter kind consciously and thus in a sense deceive his pupils. Notwithstanding these objectionable so-called proofs, so far as the foundation and the development of the system is concerned, predominate in our textbooks to the present time. Perhaps it will be answered, that rigorous proof is found too difficult for the pupil’s power of comprehension. Should this be anywhere the case, - which would only indicate some defect in the plan or treatment of the whole, - the only remedy would be to merely state the theorem in a historic way, and forego a proof with the frank confession that no proof has been found which could be comprehended by the pupil; a remedy which is ever doubtful and should only be applied in the case of extreme necessity. But this remedy is to be preferred to a proof which is no proof, and is therefore either wholly unintelligible to the pupil, or deceives him with an appearance of knowledge which opens the door to all superficiality and lack of scientific method." (Hermann G Grassmann, "Stücke aus dem Lehrbuche der Arithmetik", 1861)

"The mathematician starts with a few propositions, the proof of which is so obvious that they are called self-evident, and the rest of his work consists of subtle deductions from them. The teaching of languages, at any rate as ordinarily practised, is of the same general nature: authority and tradition furnish the data, and the mental operations are deductive." (Thomas H Huxley, 1869)

“Simplification of modes of proof is not merely an indication of advance in our knowledge of a subject, but is also the surest guarantee of readiness for farther progress.“ (Lord Kelvin, “Elements of Natural Philosophy”, 1873)

“’Divide et impera’ is as true in algebra as in statecraft; but no less true and even more fertile is the maxim ‘auge et impera’. The more to do or to prove, the easier the doing or the proof.” (James J Sylvester, “Proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Invariants”, Philosophic Magazine, 1878)

"The aim of proof is, in fact, not merely to place the truth of a proposition beyond all doubt, but also to afford us insight into the dependence of one truth upon another. After we have convinced ourselves that a boulder is immovable, by trying unsuccessfully to move it, there remains the further question, what is it that supports it so securely." (Gottlob Frege," The Foundations of Arithmetic", 1884)

“That which is provable, ought not to be believed in science without proof” (Richard Dedekind, “Was sind und was sollen die Zahlen?”, 1888)

“Pure mathematics proves itself a royal science both through its content and form, which contains within itself the cause of its being and its methods of proof. For in complete independence mathematics creates for itself the object of which it treats, its magnitudes and laws, its formulas and symbols.” (Christian H Dillmann, „Die Mathematik die Fackelträgerin einer neuen Zeit“, 1889)

“If men of science owe anything to us, we may learn much from them that is essential. For they can show how to test proof, how to secure fulness and soundness in induction, how to restrain and to employ with safety hypothesis and analogy.” (Lord John Acton, [Lecture] “The Study of History”, 1895)

“The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us.” (Paul Valéry, 1895)

"Just give me the insights. I can always come up with the proofs!" (Bernhard Riemann)

"Analogy cannot serve as proof." (Louis Pasteur)

See also:
Proofs I, II, III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX
Theorems I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X

On Proofs (1800 - 1849)

"I mean the word proof not in the sense of the lawyers, who set two half proofs equal to a whole one, but in the sense of a mathematician, where half proof = 0, and it is demanded for proof that every doubt becomes impossible." (Carl Friedrich Gauss)

"Mathematical proofs, like diamonds, are hard and clear, and will be touched with nothing but strict reasoning." (John Locke, 1824)

"Mathematics in gross, it is plain, are a grievance in natural philosophy, and with reason. […] Mathematical proofs are out of the reach of topical arguments, and are not to be attacked by the equivocal use of words or declamation, that make so great a part of other discourses; nay, even of controversies." (John Locke, 1824)

"Logic does not pretend to teach the surgeon what are the symptoms which indicate a violent death. This he must learn from his own experience and observation, or from that of others, his predecessors in his peculiar science. But logic sits in judgment on the sufficiency of that observation and experience to justify his rules, and on the sufficiency of his rules to justify his conduct. It does not give him proofs, but teaches him what makes them proofs, and how he is to judge of them." (John Stuart Mill, "A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence, and the Methods of Scientific Investigation", 1843)

On Proofs (1600 - 1800)

"It is very difficult to write mathematics books today. If one does not take pains with the fine points of theorems, explanations, proofs and corollaries, then it won’t be a mathematics book; but if one does these things, then the reading of it will be extremely boring." (Johannes Kepler)

"There have been only Mathematicians who were able to find some proofs, that is to say some sure and certain reasons." (René Descartes)

"The essential quality of a proof is to compel belief." (Pierre de Fermat)

“But the most powerful proof of the reality of phenomena (a proof which is, indeed, sufficient by itself) is success in predicting future phenomena from those which are past and present, whether the prediction be founded upon the success, so far, of a reason or hypothesis, or upon custom so far observed.” (Gottfried W Leibniz, "De Modo Distinguendi phenomena realia ab imaginariis" [“On the Method of Distinguishing Real from Imaginary Phenomena”], cca. 1684)

“Mathematics in gross, it is plain, are a grievance in natural philosophy, and with reason: for mathematical proofs, like diamonds, are hard as well as clear, and will be touched with nothing but strict reasoning. Mathematical proofs are out of the reach of topical arguments; and are not to be attacked by the equivocal use of words or declaration, that make so great a part of other discourses, - nay, even of controversies.” (John Locke, 1690)

"As arithmetic and algebra are sciences of great clearness, certainty, and extent, which are immediately conversant about signs, upon the skillful use whereof they entirely depend, so a little attention to them may possibly help us to judge of the progress of the mind in other sciences, which, though differing in nature, design, and object, may yet agree in the general methods of proof and inquiry." (George Berkeley, "Alciphron: or the Minute Philosopher", 1732)

"Some facts can be seen more clearly by example than by proof.” (Leonard Euler)

On Proofs (500 - 1499)

"Geometry enlightens the intellect and sets one's mind right. All of its proofs are very clear and orderly. It is hardly possible for errors to enter into geometrical reasoning, because it is well arranged and orderly. Thus, the mind that constantly applies itself to geometry is not likely to fall into error. In this convenient way, the person who knows geometry acquires intelligence." (Ibn Khaldun, cca. 14th century)

"But every art has its own special methods, which we may figuratively characterize as its 'approaches' or 'keys'. Seeking is a necessary preliminary to finding, and one who cannot endure the hardship of inquiry cannot expect to harvest the fruit of knowledge. Demonstrative logic, however, seeks methods [of proof] involving necessity, and arguments which establish the essential identification of terms that cannot be thrust asunder. Only that which cannot possibly be otherwise is necessary." (John of Salisbury, "Metalogicon", 1159)

"The method of demonstration is therefore generally feeble and ineffective with regard to facts of nature (I refer to corporeal and changeable things). But it quickly recovers its strength when applied to the field of mathematics. For whatever it concludes in regard to such things as numbers, proportions and figures is indubitably true, and cannot be otherwise. One who wishes to become a master of the science of demonstration should first obtain a good grasp of probabilities. Whereas the principles of demonstrative logic are necessary; those of dialectic are probable." (John of Salisbury, "Metalogicon", 1159)

“Reason may be employed in two ways to establish a point: first for the purpose of furnishing sufficient proof of some principle, as in natural science, where sufficient proof can be brought to show that the movement of the heavens is always of uniform velocity. Reason is employed in another way, not as furnishing a sufficient proof of a principle, but as confirming an already established principle, by showing the congruity of its results [...]” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, “Summa Theologica“, 1485)

Proofs ( - 499 AD)

"It is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician demonstrative proofs." (Aristotle, cca. 4th century BC)

"Analysis is the obtaining of the thing sought by assuming it and so reasoning up to an admitted truth; synthesis is the obtaining of the thing sought by reasoning up to the inference and proof of it." (Eudoxus, cca. 4th century BC)

"Analysis is a method where one assumes that which is sought, and from this, through a series of implications, arrives at something which is agreed upon on the basis of synthesis; because in analysis, one assumes that which is sought to be known, proved, or constructed, and examines what this is a consequence of and from what this latter follows, so that by backtracking we end up with something that is already known or is part of the starting points of the theory; we call such a method analysis; it is, in a sense, a solution in reversed direction. In synthesis we work in the opposite direction: we assume the last result of the analysis to be true. Then we put the causes from analysis in their natural order, as consequences, and by putting these together we obtain the proof or the construction of that which is sought. We call this synthesis." (Pappus of Alexandria, cca. 4th century BC)

"In analysis, we start from what is required, we take it for granted, and we draw consequences from it, and consequences from the consequences, till we reach a point that we can use as starting point in synthesis. For in analysis we assume what is required to be done as already done (what is sought as already found, what we have to prove as true). We inquire from what antecedent the desired result could be derived; then we inquire again what could be the antecedent of that antecedent, and so on, until passing from antecedent to antecedent, we come eventually upon something already known or admittedly true. This procedure we call analysis, or solution backwards, or regressive reasoning." (Pappus of Alexandria, cca. 4th century BC)

"Now analysis is of two kinds; the one is the analysis of the ‘problems to prove’ and aims at establishing true theorems; the other is the analysis of the ‘problems to find’ and aims at finding the unknown."  (Pappus of Alexandria, cca. 4th century BC)

"It is of course easier to supply the proof when we have previously acquired some knowledge of the questions by the method, than it is to find it without any previous knowledge." (Archimedes, cca. 3rd century BC)

"It is not possible to find in all geometry more difficult and more intricate questions or more simple and lucid explanations [than those given by Archimedes]. Some ascribe this to his natural genius; while others think that incredible effort and toil produced these, to all appearance, easy and unlaboured results. No amount of investigation of yours would succeed in attaining the proof, and yet, once seen, you immediately believe you would have discovered it; by so smooth and so rapid a path he leads you to the conclusion required." (Plutarch, cca. 1st century)

On Beauty: Beauty and Mathematics (2000-2019)

"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)

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

“Elegance and simplicity should remain important criteria in judging mathematics, but the applicability and consequences of a result are also important, and sometimes these criteria conflict. I believe that some fundamental theorems do not admit simple elegant treatments, and the proofs of such theorems may of necessity be long and complicated. Our standards of rigor and beauty must be sufficiently broad and realistic to allow us to accept and appreciate such results and their proofs. As mathematicians we will inevitably use such theorems when it is necessary in the practice our trade; our philosophy and aesthetics should reflect this reality.” (Michael Aschbacher, “Highly complex proofs and implications”, 2005)

"Still, in the end, we find ourselves drawn to the beauty of the patterns themselves, and the amazing fact that we humans are smart enough to prove even a feeble fraction of all possible theorems about them. Often, greater than the contemplation of this beauty for the active mathematician is the excitement of the chase. Trying to discover first what patterns actually do or do not occur, then finding the correct statement of a conjecture, and finally proving it - these things are exhilarating when accomplished successfully. Like all risk-takers, mathematicians labor months or years for these moments of success." (Avner Ash & Robert Gross, "Fearless Symmetry: Exposing the hidden patterns of numbers", 2006)

"Arguments for the Riemann hypothesis often include its widespread ramifications and appeals to mathematical beauty; however, we also have a large corpus of hard facts. With the advent of powerful computational tools over the last century, mathematicians have increasingly turned to computational evidence to support conjectures, and the Riemann hypothesis is no exception." (Peter Borwein et al, "The Riemann Hypothesis: A Resource for the Afficionado and Virtuoso Alike", 2007)

"I think that the beauty of mathematics lies in uncovering the hidden simplicity and complexity that coexist in the rigid logical framework that the subject imposes." (David Ruelle, "The Mathematician's Brain", 2007)

"[...] it is while doing mathematical research that one truly comes to see the beauty of mathematics. It faces you in those moments when the underlying simplicity of a question appears and its meaningless complications can be forgotten. In those moments a piece of a colossal logical structure is illumi￾nated, and some of the meaning hidden in the nature of things is finally revealed." (David Ruelle, "The Mathematician's Brain", 2007)

“The immediate evidence from the natural world may seem to be chaotic and without any inner regularity, but mathematics reveals that under the surface the world of nature has an unexpected simplicity - an extraordinary beauty and order.” (William Byers, “How Mathematicians Think”, 2007)

“I enjoy mathematics so much because it has a strange kind of unearthly beauty. There is a strong feeling of pleasure, hard to describe, in thinking through an elegant proof, and even greater pleasure in discovering a proof not previously known.” (Martin Gardner, 2008)

“In mathematics, beauty is a very important ingredient. Beauty exists in mathematics as in architecture and other things. It is a difficult thing to define but it is something you recognise when you see it. It certainly has to have elegance, simplicity, structure and form. All sorts of things make up real beauty. There are many different kinds of beauty and the same is true of mathematical theorems. Beauty is an important criterion in mathematics because basically there is a lot of choice in what you can do in mathematics and science. It determines what you regard as important and what is not.” (Michael Atiyah, 2009)

“Mathematics is the music of reason. To do mathematics is to engage in an act of discovery and conjecture, intuition and inspiration; to be in a state of confusion - not because it makes no sense to you, but because you gave it sense and you still don't understand what your creation is up to; to have a break-through idea; to be frustrated as an artist; to be awed and overwhelmed by an almost painful beauty; to be alive, damn it.” (Paul Lockhart, A Mathematician's Lament, 2009)

“Mathematicians seek a certain kind of beauty. Perhaps mathematical beauty is a constant - as far as the contents of mathematics are concerned - and yet the forms this beauty takes are certainly cultural. And while the history of mathematics surely is many stranded, one of its most important strands is formed by such cultural forms of mathematical beauty.” (Reviel Netz, “Ludic Proof: Greek Mathematics and the Alexandrian Aesthetic”, 2009)

“Mathematicians are sometimes described as living in an ideal world of beauty and harmony. Instead, our world is torn apart by inconsistencies, plagued by non sequiturs and, worst of all, made desolate and empty by missing links between words, and between symbols and their referents; we spend our lives patching and repairing it. Only when the last crack disappears are we rewarded by brief moments of harmony and joy.” (Alexandre V Borovik, “Mathematics under the Microscope: Notes on Cognitive Aspects of Mathematical Practice”, 2009)

“What is the basis of this interest in beauty? Is it the same in both mathematics and science? Is it rational, in either case, to expect or demand that the products of the discipline satisfy such a criterion? Is there an underlying assumption that the proper business of mathematics and science is to discover what can be discovered about reality and that truth - mathematical and physical - when seen as clearly as possible, must be beautiful? If the demand for beauty stems from some such assumption, is the assumption itself an article of blind faith? If such an assumption is not its basis, what is?” (Raymond S Nickerson, “Mathematical Reasoning:  Patterns, Problems, Conjectures, and Proofs”, 2010)

"You do not study mathematics because it helps you build a bridge. You study mathematics because it is the poetry of the universe. Its beauty transcends mere things." (Jonathan D Farley, 2011)

"Mathematics leads to simple and beautiful conclusions by ignoring and idealizing various factors in order to abstract. However, reality is both more complex and discrete, and in many cases mathematical conclusions are only approximately valid. There is also the risk that the assumptions used for valuation models differ from the market (model risk), as well as issues with the reliability of the parameters used in the model (parameter risk)." (Kenichi Watanabe, "The Role of Mathematics in Finance: Applied Mathematics and Risk", 2013)

On Beauty: Beauty and Mathematics VI (Unsourced)

“The beauty in mathematics is seeing the truth without effort.” (George Pólya)

"Mathematics has beauty and romance. It's not a boring place to be, the mathematical world. It's an extraordinary place; it's worth spending time there." (Marcus Du Sautoy)

"When I am working on a problem I never think about beauty. I only think about how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." (Buckminster Fuller)

"[…] the feeling of mathematical beauty, of the harmony of numbers and of forms, of geometric elegance. It is a genuinely esthetic feeling, which all mathematicians know. And this is sensitivity." (Henri Poincaré)

“The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing, and if nature were not worth knowing, life would not be worth living. Of course I do not here speak of that beauty that strikes the senses, the beauty of qualities and appearances; not that I undervalue such beauty, far from it, but it has nothing to do with science; I mean that profounder beauty which comes from the harmonious order of the parts, and which a pure intelligence can grasp.” (Henri Poincaré)

"All mathematicians share ... a sense of amazement over the infinite depth and the mysterious beauty and usefulness of mathematics." (Martin Gardner)

"There are some traits all mathematicians share. An obvious one is a sense of amazement over the infinite depth and the mysterious beauty and usefulness of mathematics." (Martin Gardner)

"I was struck by the art with which mathematicians remove, reject, and little by little eliminate everything that is not necessary for expressing the absolute with the least possible number of terms, while preserving in the arrangement of these terms a discrimination, a parallelism, a symmetry which seems to be the visible elegance and beauty of an eternal idea. (Edgar Quinet)