3 ms·
It's true that there's some aesthetic judgment involved in writing proofs, but it's heavily constrained by the problems you're trying to solve. I think this pre
by mrob 10y ago
It's true that there's some aesthetic judgment involved in writing proofs, but it's heavily constrained by the problems you're trying to solve. I think this prevents it from being great art, even when it's great mathematics. It's similar to writing puns, which nobody claims are great comedy, or lipograms, which nobody claims are great literature.
- hx87 10y agoArchitecture, especially before the advent of reinforced concrete, is heavily constrained by mechanics, and yet few would claim that architecture cannot be great art.
- IanCal 10y agoPure maths is not particularly constrained, is it? You don't even really need to have a certain actual problem you're trying to solve. That feels like saying a book can't be great art because it's heavily constrained by the story you're trying to tell.
- mrob 10y agoA book doesn't have to be heavily constrained by the story. What's the mathematical equivalent of Finnegans Wake?
- IanCal 10y agoWould you accept no books "constrained" by their story as art?
- mrob 10y agoI don't think there's any hard cut-off where you can say something is art or not art. But even the most formulaic genre fiction gives more freedom to the author in how they can arrange their words. English language doesn't have a formal grammar and rules are more like suggestions. But if mathematics breaks the commonly accepted rules then it's just plain wrong.
- IanCal 10y ago> But if mathematics breaks the commonly accepted rules then it's just plain wrong. I disagree. You're free to alter, ignore or add rules and then explore the consequences of your choices.