Mathematics: Encyclopedia II - Mathematics - Notation language and rigor

Mathematics - Notation language and rigor

Most of the mathematical notation we use today was not invented until the 16th Century. Before that, mathematics was written out in words, a painstaking process that limited mathematical discovery. Modern notation makes mathematics much easier for the professional, but beginners often find it daunting. It is extremely compressed: a few symbols contain a great deal of information. Like musical notation, modern mathematical notation has a strict grammar (under the influence of computer science, more often now called syntax) and encodes information that would be difficult to write in any other way.

Mathematical language also is hard for beginners. Even common words, such as or and only, have more precise meanings than in everyday speech. Mathematicians, like lawyers, strive to be as unambiguous as possible. Also confusing to beginners, words such as open and field have been given specialized mathematical meanings, and mathematical jargon includes technical terms such as "homeomorphism" and integrable. It was said that Henri Poincaré was only elected to the Académie Française so that he could tell them how to define automorphe in their dictionary. But there is a reason for special notation and technical jargon: mathematics requires more precision than everyday speech. Mathematicians refer to this precision of language and logic as "rigor".

Rigor is fundamentally a matter of mathematical proof. Mathematicians want their theorems to follow from axioms by means of systematic reasoning. This is to avoid mistaken 'theorems', based on fallible intuitions, of which many instances have occurred in the history of the subject (for example, in mathematical analysis). The level of rigor expected in mathematics has varied over time; the Greeks expected detailed arguments, but by the time of Isaac Newton the methods employed were less rigorous. Problems inherent in the definitions used by Newton would lead to a resurgence of careful analysis and formal proof in the 19th century. Today, mathematicians continue to argue among themselves about computer-assisted proofs. Since errors can be made in a computation, is such a proof sufficiently rigorous?

Axioms in traditional thought were 'self-evident truths', but that conception is problematic. At a formal level, an axiom is just a string of symbols, which has an intrinsic meaning only in the context of all derivable formulas of an axiomatic system. It was the goal of Hilbert's program to put all of mathematics on a firm axiomatic basis, but according to Gödel's incompleteness theorem every (sufficiently powerful) axiomatic system has undecidable formulas; and so a final axiomatization of mathematics is unavailable. Nonetheless mathematics is often imagined to be (as far as its formal content) nothing but set theory in some axiomatization, in the sense that every mathematical statement or proof could be cast into formulas within set theory.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Notation language and rigor", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki