Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T15:24:43.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MOTIVATED PROOFS: WHAT THEY ARE, WHY THEY MATTER AND HOW TO WRITE THEM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2019

REBECCA LEA MORRIS
REBECCA LEA MORRIS*
Affiliation:
Independent Scholar
*
*Independent Scholar E-mail: [email protected]URL: https://rebeccaleamorris.com/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mathematicians judge proofs to possess, or lack, a variety of different qualities, including, for example, explanatory power, depth, purity, beauty and fit. Philosophers of mathematical practice have begun to investigate the nature of such qualities. However, mathematicians frequently draw attention to another desirable proof quality: being motivated. Intuitively, motivated proofs contain no “puzzling” steps, but they have received little further analysis. In this article, I begin a philosophical investigation into motivated proofs. I suggest that a proof is motivated if and only if mathematicians can identify (i) the tasks each step is intended to perform; and (ii) where each step could have reasonably come from. I argue that motivated proofs promote understanding, convey new mathematical resources and stimulate new discoveries. They thus have significant epistemic benefits and directly contribute to the efficient dissemination and advancement of mathematical knowledge. Given their benefits, I also discuss the more practical matter of how we can produce motivated proofs. Finally I consider the relationship between motivated proofs and proofs which are explanatory, beautiful and fitting.

Keywords

00A3097E20philosophy of mathematical practiceproofs
Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 23 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Art of Problem Solving (n.d.). Proofs of AM-GM. Archived at: https://perma.cc/QTE7-YEH8.Google Scholar
Avigad, J. (2018). Modularity in mathematics. Review of Symbolic Logic, doi: 10.1017/S1755020317000387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avigad, J. & Morris, R. L. (2014). The concept of “character” in Dirichlet’s theorem on primes in an arithmetic progression. Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 68(3), 265–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avigad, J. & Morris, R. L. (2016). Character and object. Review of Symbolic Logic, 9(3), 480–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cellucci, C. (2015). Mathematical beauty, understanding, and discovery. Foundations of Science, 20(4), 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, P. L. (2013). Proof that every odd integer is a difference of two squares. URL: http://math.stackexchange.com/q/510239. Archived at: https://perma.cc/F8UZ-G7SP.Google Scholar
Cohn, H. (2006). A short proof of the simple continued fraction expansion of e. The American Mathematical Monthly, 113(1), 57–62.Google Scholar
Cooke, D. E., Kreinovich, V., & Longpré, L. (1998). Which algorithms are feasible? Maxent approach. In Erickson, G. J., Rychert, J. T., and Smith, C. R., editors. Maximum Entropy and Bayesian Methods. Fundamental Theories of Physics. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrádi, K. & Szadó, S. (1993). A generalized form of Hajós’ theorem. Communications in Algebra, 21(11), 4119–4125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detlefsen, M. & Arana, A. (2011). Purity of methods. Philosophers’ Imprint, 11, 1–20.Google Scholar
Deutsch, F. R. (2012). Best Approximation in Inner Product Spaces. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Gowers, T. (2008). Very brief tricki update. Archived at: https://perma.cc/9V4P-734F.Google Scholar
Halliwell, J. J. (2014). Two proofs of fine’s theorem. Physics Letters A, 378(40), 2945–2950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, T. W. (2010). Discovering and proving that π is irrational. The American Mathematical Monthly, 117(6), 553–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1989). Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. In Kitcher, P. and Salmon, W., editors. Scientific Explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 410–505.Google Scholar
Lange, M. (2009). Why proofs by mathematical induction are generally not explanatory. Analysis, 69(2), 203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, M. (2015). Depth and explanation in mathematics. Philosophia Mathematica Series III, 23(2), 196–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLane, S. (1935). A logical analysis of mathematical structure. The Monist, 45(1), 118–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montanaro, A. (2013). Simplest or nicest proof that 1 + x ≤ e x. Mathematics Stack Exchange. Archived at: https://perma.cc/E3Y5-WW9F.Google Scholar
Morris, R. L. (2015). Appropriate Steps: A Theory of Motivated Proofs. Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Morris, R. L. (2019). Do mathematical explanations have instrumental value? Synthese, doi: 10.1007/s11229-019-02114-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, M. & Schleicher, D. (2011). How to add a noninteger number of terms: From axioms to new identities. The American Mathematical Monthly, 118(2), 136–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pólya, G. (1949). With, or without, motivation? The American Mathematical Monthly, 56(10), 684–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raman-Sundström, M. & Öhman, L.-D. (2018). Mathematical fit: A case study. Philosophia Mathematica, 26(2), 184–210.Google Scholar
Rav, Y. (1999). Why do we prove theorems? Philosophia Mathematica, 7(1), 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, C. A. (1973). Lusin’s second separation theorem. Journal of the London Mathematical Society. Second Series, s2-6(3), 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rota, G.-C. (1997). The phenomenology of mathematical beauty. Synthese, 111(2), 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandborg, D. (1997). Explanation in Mathematical Practice. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Sandborg, D. (1998). Mathematical explanation and the theory of why-questions. The British journal for the philosophy of science, 49(4), 603–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherali, H. D. (1987). A constructive proof of the representation theorem for polyhedral sets based on fundamental definitions. American Journal of Mathematical and Management Sciences, 7(3–4), 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieg, W. (2010). Searching for proofs (and uncovering capacities of the mathematical mind). In Feferman, S., and Sieg, W., editors. Proofs, Categories and Computations–Essays in Honor of Grigori Mints. London: College Publications, 189–215.Google Scholar
Steele, J. M. (2004). The Cauchy-Schwarz Master Class: An Introduction to the Art of Mathematical Inequalities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, M. (1978). Mathematical explanation. Philosophical studies, 34(2), 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tappenden, J. (2008). Mathematical concepts: Fruitfulness and naturalness. In Mancosu, P., editor. The Philosophy of Mathematical Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 276–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thurston, W. P. (1994). On proof and progress in mathematics. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 30, 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, J. (2017). Scientific explanation. In Zalta, E. N., editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/scientific-explanation/.Google Scholar
Yap, A. (2011). Gauss’ quadratic reciprocity theorem and mathematical fruitfulness. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Part B. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 42(3), 410–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar