“A mathematician, then, will be defined in what follows as someone who has published the proof of at least one non-trivial theorem.”

— Jean Dieudonné

Mathematics and Mathematicians (1992); published in Is Mathematics Inevitable? A Miscellany (2008), edited by Underwood Dudley, p. 3. ISBN 0883855666

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 3, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "A mathematician, then, will be defined in what follows as someone who has published the proof of at least one non-trivi…" by Jean Dieudonné?

Jean Dieudonné 1

Related quotes

“A mathematician is a person who can find analogies between theorems; a better mathematician is one who can see analogies between proofs and the best mathematician can notice analogies between theories. One can imagine that the ultimate mathematician is one who can see analogies between analogies.”

Stefan Banach (1892–1945) Polish &Ukrainian mathematician

[Beata Randrianantoanina, Narcisse Randrianantoanina, Banach Spaces and Their Applications in Analysis: Proceedings of the International Conference at Miami University, May 22-27, 2006, in Honor of Nigel Kalton's 60th Birthday, http://books.google.com/books?id=1GiwqU-gB_kC&pg=PR5, 2007, Walter de Gruyter, 978-3-11-019449-4, 5]

“One physicist writes a study on microphysics, but another writes a book on the importance of Lenin’s and Engels’ works for the development of physics; one mathematician proves theorems, another publishes demagoguery on ingenious mathematical ideas of classical Marxists.”

Aleksandr Zinovyev (1922–2006) Russian writer

On the Social State of Marxism (1978)

“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 ½ proof = 0, and it is demanded for proof that every doubt becomes impossible.”

Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777–1855) German mathematician and physical scientist

In a letter to Heinrich Wilhelm Matthias Olbers (14 May 1826), defending Chevalier d'Angos against presumption of guilt (by Johann Franz Encke and others), of having falsely claimed to have discovered a comet in 1784; as quoted in Calculus Gems (1992) by George F. Simmons

“I am obliged to interpolate some remarks on a very difficult subject: proof and its importance in mathematics. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians, are contemptuous about proof. I have heard Professor Eddington, for example, maintain that proof, as pure mathematicians understand it, is really quite uninteresting and unimportant, and that no one who is really certain that he has found something good should waste his time looking for proof.”

G. H. Hardy (1877–1947) British mathematician

Source: Ramanujan (1940), Ch. I : The Indian mathematician Ramanujan.

“Comparatively few of the propositions and proofs in the Elements are his [Euclid's] own discoveries. In fact, the proof of the "Theorem of Pythagoras" is the only one directly ascribed to him.”

Florian Cajori book A History of Mathematics

Source: A History of Mathematics (1893), p. 30, Reported in Moritz (1914)

“As a boy of six I could understand the proof of a mathematical theorem more readily than that meat had to be cut with one's knife, not one's fork.”

Ferdinand Eisenstein (1823–1852) German mathematician

Curriculum Vitae - an autobiographical statement written when Eisenstein was 20, often referred to as his "Autobiography" (1843)

“I propose this theorem to be proved or problem to be solved. If they succeed in discovering the proof or solution, they will acknowledge that questions of this kind are not inferior to the more celebrated ones from geometry either for depth or difficulty or method of proof”

Pierre de Fermat (1601–1665) French mathematician and lawyer

Letter to Frénicle (1657) Oeuvres de Fermat Vol.II as quoted by Edward Everett Whitford, The Pell Equation http://books.google.com/books?id=L6QKAAAAYAAJ (1912)
Context: There is scarcely any one who states purely arithmetical questions, scarcely any who understands them. Is this not because arithmetic has been treated up to this time geometrically rather than arithmetically? This certainly is indicated by many works ancient and modern. Diophantus himself also indicates this. But he has freed himself from geometry a little more than others have, in that he limits his analysis to rational numbers only; nevertheless the Zetcica of Vieta, in which the methods of Diophantus are extended to continuous magnitude and therefore to geometry, witness the insufficient separation of arithmetic from geometry. Now arithmetic has a special domain of its own, the theory of numbers. This was touched upon but only to a slight degree by Euclid in his Elements, and by those who followed him it has not been sufficiently extended, unless perchance it lies hid in those books of Diophantus which the ravages of time have destroyed. Arithmeticians have now to develop or restore it. To these, that I may lead the way, I propose this theorem to be proved or problem to be solved. If they succeed in discovering the proof or solution, they will acknowledge that questions of this kind are not inferior to the more celebrated ones from geometry either for depth or difficulty or method of proof: Given any number which is not a square, there also exists an infinite number of squares such that when multiplied into the given number and unity is added to the product, the result is a square.