Are These the Most Beautiful?

David Wells
In the Fall 1988 Mathematical Intelligencer (vol. 10, no. 4) (11)
readers were asked to evaluate 24 theorems, on a scale
from 0 to 10, for beauty. I received 76 completed ques- (12)
tionnaires, including 11 from a preliminary version
(plus 10 extra, not ed below.)
One person assi gned each t heorem a score of 0, (13)
with the comment, "Mat hs is a tool. Art has beauty";
that response was excluded from the averages listed
below, as was another that awarded very many zeros, (14)
four who left many blanks, and two who awarded nu-
merous 10s.
The 24 theorems are listed below, ordered by their
average score from the remaining 68 responses 9
Rank
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Theorem Average
d ~' = - 1 7.7
Euler's formula for a polyhedron: 7.5
V+F=E+2
The number of primes is infinite. 7.5
There are 5 regular polyhedra. 7.0
1 1 1
1 + ~ + ~ + ~ + . . . = "rr2/6. 7.0
A continuous mappi ng of the 6.8
closed unit disk into itself has a
fixed point.
There is no rational number whose 6.7
square is 2.
~r is transcendental. 6.5
Every plane map can be coloured 6.2
with 4 colours.
Every prime number of the form 6.0
4n + 1 is the sum of two integral
squares in exactly one way.
(15)
The order of a subgroup divides 5.3
the order of the group.
Any square matrix satisfies its 5.2
characteristic equation.
A regular icosahedron inscribed in 5.0
a regular octahedron divides the
edges in the Golden Ratio.
1 1
4.8
2x3x4 4x5x6
1
+
6x7x8
, r r - 3
9 " 4
If the points of the plane are each 4.7
coloured red, yellow, or blue,
THE MATHEMATICAL INTELLIGENCER VOL. 12, NO. 3 9 1990 Springer-Verlag New York 37
t here is a pai r of poi nt s of t he same
col our of mut ual distance uni t y.
(16) The number of partitions of an 4.7
i nt eger i nt o odd integers is equal
to t he number of partitions into
distinct integers.
(17) Every number great er t han 77 is 4.7
the s um of integers, the s um of
whos e reciprocals is 1.
(18) The number of represent at i ons of 4.7
an odd number as t he sum of 4
squares is 8 t i mes t he sum of its
divisors; of an even number , 24
times t he s um of its odd divisors.
(19) There is no equilateral triangle 4.7
whos e vertices are pl ane lattice
points.
(20) At any part y, t here is a pair of 4.7
peopl e who have t he same number
of fri ends present .
Write down t he multiples of r oot
2, i gnori ng fractional parts, and
under neat h wri t e t he number s
mi ssi ng from t he first sequence.
1 2 4 5 7 8 9 1 1 1 2
3 6 10 13 17 20 23 27 30
The di fference is 2n in the nth
place.
The wor d pr obl em for gr oups is
unsol vabl e.
(21) 4.2
(22) 4.1
(23) The maxi mum area of a 3.9
quadrilateral wi t h sides a , b , c , d
is [(s - a ) ( s - b ) ( s - c ) ( s - d)] w,
wher e s is hal f t he perimeter.
5 [ ( 1 - - X 5 ) ( 1 - - x l O ) ( I - - X 1 3 . . 9 15
(24) [(1 - x)(1 - x2)(1 - x3)(1 - x4)... 16 3.9
= p(4) + p(9)x + p(14)x a + . . . .
whe r e p ( n ) is t he number of
partitions of n.
The fol l owi ng comment s are di vi ded i nt o t hemes.
Unat t ri but ed quot es are from r espondent s.
T h e m e 1: Ar e T h e o r e m s Be a u t i f u l ?
Tony Gardi ner ar gued t hat "Theor ems ar en' t us ual l y
' beautiful' . It' s t he i deas and p r o o f s t hat appeal , " and
r emar ked of t he t heor ems he had not scor ed, "The
r est are har d t o s c o r e - - e i t h e r becaus e t he y ar en' t
really beautiful, however i mport ant , or because the
formul at i on gi ven get s in t he way . . . . " Several re-
s ponde nt s di sl i ked j udgi ng t heor ems. ( How ma ny
r eader s di d not repl y for such reasons?)
Benno Ar t mann wr ot e "for me it is i mpossi bl e to
j udge a ' pure fact' "; this is consi st ent wi t h his i nt erest
in Bourbaki and the axiomatic devel opment of struc-
t ures.
Thomas Drucker: " One does not have to be a Rus-
sellian to feel t hat much of mat hemat i cs has to do wi t h
deri vi ng consequences from assumpt i ons. As a result,
any ' t heor em' cannot be i sol at ed from the as s ump-
tions under whi ch it is der i ved. "
Ger har d Domanski: "Somet i mes I find a pr obl em
mor e beaut i ful t han its solution. I find also beaut y in
mat hemat i cal i deas or cons t r uct i ons , such as t he
Turi ng machi ne, fractals, t wi st ors, and so on . . . . The
or der i ng of a whol e field, like t he wor k of Bourbaki
9 . . is of great beaut y to me. "
R. P. Lewi s writes, ' ( 1 ) . . . I awar d 10 poi nt s not so
much for t he equat i on itself as for Compl ex Anal ysi s
as a whol e. ' To what ext ent was t he good score for (4)
a vot e for t he beaut y of t he Platonic solids t hemsel ves?
T h e m e 2: S o c i a l Fac t or s
Mi ght some vot es have gone to (1), (3), (5), (7), and (8)
because t hey are ' known' to be beautiful? I am suspi -
ci ous t hat (1) recei ved so ma ny scores in t he 7- 10
range. This woul d surpri se me, because I suspect t hat
mat hemat i ci ans are mor e i n d e p e n d e n t t han mos t
peopl e [13] of ot hers' opi ni ons. (The t en extra forms
referred to above came from Eliot Jacobson' s st udent s
in his number t heor y course t hat emphasi ses t he role
of beaut y. I not ed that t hey gave no zeros at all.)
T h e m e 3: C h a n g e s i n A p p r e c i a t i o n o v e r T i me
There was a not abl e number of l ow scores for t he hi gh
rank t heorems 9 Le Lionnais has one explanation [7]:
"Eul er' s formul a e i~' = - 1 est abl i shes what appear ed
in its t i me to be a fantastic connect i on bet ween t he
most i mpor t ant number s i n mat hemat i cs . . . It was
gener al l y consi der ed ' t he mos t beaut i f ul f or mul a of
mat hemat i cs' . . . Today t he intrinsic reason for this
compat i bi l i t y has become so obvi ous t hat t he same
formul a n o w seems, if not insipid, at least entirely nat-
ur al . " Le Li onnai s, unf or t unat el y, does not qual i fy
" now s eems " by asking, "'to whom? "
Ho w does j udgment change wi t h time? Bur nsi de
[1], r ef er r i ng to % gr oup whi c h is . . . abst r act l y
e q u i v a l e n t t o t hat of t he p e r mu t a t i o n s of f our
symbol s, " wr ot e, "i n the latter form t he probl em pre-
sent ed woul d to many mi nds be al most repul si ve in its
naked f o r ma l i t y . . . "
Earlier [2], perspect i ve proj ect i on was, "'a process
occasi onal l y r es or t ed to by ge ome t e r s of our o wn
count ry, but general l y e s t e e me d . . , to be a species of
3 8 THE MATHEMATICAL INTELLIGENCER VOL. 12, NO. 3, 1990
' geometrical trickery' , by whi ch, ' our not i ons of ele-
gance or geometrical puri t y may be violated . . . . ' "
I am sympat het i c to Tito Tonietti: "' Beauty, even in
mat hemat i cs, de pe nds upon historical a nd cul t ural
contexts, and t herefore t ends to el ude numer i cal inter-
pret at i on. "
Compare t he psychological concept of habi t uat i on.
Can and do mat hemat i ci ans deliberately undo such ef-
fects by placing t hemsel ves empathically in t he posi-
tion of t he original discoverers?
Ger har d Domanski wr ot e out t he ent i re question-
nai r e by hand, expl ai ni ng, "As I wr ot e d o wn t he
t heor em I tried to r emember t he feelings I had when I
first hear d of it. In this way I gave t he scores. "
Theme 4: Simplicity and Brevity
No criteria are mor e oft en associated wi t h beaut y t han
simplicity and brevity.
M. Gunzl er wi shed (6) had a simpler proof. David
Hal pri n wrot e "' the beaut y that I find in mat hemat i cs
9 . . is mor e to be f ound in t he clever and/ or succinct
wa y it is pr ove n. " Davi d Si ngmast er ma r ke d (10)
down somewhat , because it does not have a simple
proof. I feel t hat this indicates its dept h and mar k it up
accordingly.
Are t here no symphoni es or epics in t he worl d of
beautiful proofs? Some chess players prefer t he ele-
gant simplicity of t he endgame, others appreci at e t he
compl exi t y of t he mi ddl e game. Either way, pl easure
is deri ved from t he r educt i on of complexity to sim-
plicity, but t he pr ef er r ed level of compl exi t y differs
from pl ayer to player. Are mat hemat i ci ans similarly
varied?
Roger Penr ose [10] asked whe t he r an una dor ne d
square grid was beautiful, or was it too simple? He
concl uded that he pr ef er r ed his non-peri odi c tessella-
tions. But t he quest i on is a good one. How simple can
a beaut i ful ent i t y be?
Are easy t heor ems less beautiful? One r es pondent
mar ked down (11) and (20) for being "t oo easy, " and
(22) for bei ng "'too difficult. " David Gurarie mar ked
down (11) and (1) for bei ng too simple, and anot her
r e s p o n d e n t r ef er r ed to t he or e ms t hat ar e t r ue by
vi r t ue of t he defi ni t i on of t hei r t erms, whi ch coul d
have been a dig at (1).
Theor em (20) is ext raordi nari l y si mpl e but mor e
t han a quart er of t he r espondent s scored it 7 +.
Theme 5: Surprise
Yanni s Har al ambous wr ot e: " a beaut i f ul t he or e m
mus t be surprising and deep. It must provi de you wi t h a
ne w vision o f . . . mat hemat i cs, " and ment i oned t he
pr i me number t heor em (which was by far t he most
popul ar suggest i on for t heor ems that ought to have
been i ncl uded in t he quiz).
R. P. Lewis: "(24) is t op of my list, because it is sur-
pri si ng, not r eadi l y gener al i zabl e, and di ffi cul t t o
prove. It is also i mpor t ant . " (12 + in t he margin!)
Jonat han Wat son criticised a lack of novel t y, in this
sense: "(24), (23), (17) . . . seem t o tell us little t hat is
new about t he concepts t hat appear in t hem. "
Penrose [11] qualifies At i yah' s suggest i on "t hat ele-
gance is mor e or less s ynonymous wi t h simplicity" by
dai mi ng t hat "one shoul d say t hat it has to do wi t h
unexpected simplicity."
Surpri se and novel t y are expect ed to provoke emo-
tion, of t en pl easant , but also of t en negat i ve. Ne w
st yl es i n popul ar and hi gh cul t ur e have a novel t y
value, albeit t emporary. As usual t here is a psychol og-
ical connect i on. Huma n bei ngs do not r espond to j ust
any stimulus: t hey do t end to r es pond to novelty, sur-
pr i si ngness, i ncongrui t y, and compl exi t y. But wha t
happens whe n t he novel t y wears off?
Surprise is also associated wi t h myst ery. Einstein
asserted, "The most beautiful t hi ng we can experi ence
is t he myst eri ous. It is t he source of all t rue art and
sci ence. " But what happens wh e n t he myst er y is re-
solved? Is t he beaut y t r ansf or med into anot her beaut y,
or ma y it evaporat e?
I i ncl uded (21) and (17) because t hey initially mysti-
fied and surpri sed me. At second sight, (17) remai ns
so, and scores quite highly, but (21) is at most pret t y.
(How do mat hemat i ci ans t end to di st i ngui sh bet ween
beautiful and pretty?)
Theme 6: Depth
Look at t heor em (24). Oh, come on now, Ladies and
Gent l emen! Please! I sn' t t hi s di ffi cul t , deep, sur-
pri si ng, a nd si mpl e rel at i ve to its subj ect mat t er?!
What mor e do you want ? It is quot ed by Littlewood [8]
in his r evi ew of Ramanuj an' s col l ect ed wor ks as of
"' supreme beaut y. " I wonder ed what readers woul d
t hi nk of it: but I never supposed t hat it woul d r ank
last, wi t h (19), (20), and (21).
R. P. Lewi s i l l ust r at ed t he var i et y of r es pons es
when he suggest ed t hat among t heor ems not i ncl uded
I coul d have chosen "Most of Ramanuj an' s work, ' "
addi ng, "'(21) is pret t y, but easy to prove, and not so
deep. "
De pt h s e e ms not so i mpor t a nt to r es pondent s ,
whi ch makes me feel that my i nt erpret at i on of dept h
may be idiosyncratic. I was surpri sed t hat t heor em (8),
whi ch is sur el y deep, ranks bel ow (5), to whi ch Le
Li onnai s' s a r g u me n t mi ght appl y, but (8) has no
simple proof 9 Is simplicity t hat i mport ant ?
(18) also scored poorly. Is it no l onger deep or diffi-
cult? Al an Lavert y and Alfredo Octavio suggest ed t hat
it woul d be har der and mor e beaut i ful if it answer ed
THE MATHEMATICAL INTELL1GENCER VOL. 12, NO. 3, 1990 ~ 9
t he same probl em for non-zero squares.
Daniel Shanks once asked whe t he r t he quadrat i c
reciprocity l aw is deep, and concl uded t hat it is not,
any l onger. Can loss of dept h have des t r oyed t he
beaut y of (24)?
Th e me 7: Fi e l ds o f Interest
Robert Ander ssen ar gued t hat j udgement s of mat he-
matical beaut y "will not be universal, but will depend
on t he backgr ound of t he mat hemat i ci an (algebraist,
geomet er, analyst, etc. )"
S. Liu, wri t i ng f r om P h y s i c s R e v i e w (a handf ul of re-
spondent s i dent i fi ed t hemsel ves as non- pur e- mat he-
maticians), admi t t ed "' my answers reflect a preference
for t he algebraic and number-t heoret i cal over t he geo-
metrical, topological, and analytical t heor ems , ' and
cont i nued: "I l ove classical Eucl i dean g e o me t r y - - a
subject whi ch originally attracted me to mat hemat i cs.
However, wi t hi n t he context of your quest i onnai re,
t he pur el y geomet ri cal t heor ems pale by compari son. "
Shoul d readers have been asked to r es pond onl y to
t hose t heor ems wi t h whi ch t hey wer e ext remel y fa-
miliar? (22) is t he onl y i t em that shoul d not have been
i ncl uded, because so many left it blank. Was it out si de
t he mai n field of i nt erest of most r espondent s, and
rat ed down for t hat reason?
The me 8: Di f f e r e nc e s i n Form
Two r e s ponde nt s s ugges t ed t hat e i " + 1 = 0 was
(much) superior, combi ni ng "t he five most i mport ant
const ant s. " Can a small and "i nessent i al " change in a
t heor em change its aesthetic value? How woul d i i =
e -~'t2 have scored?
Two not ed t hat (19) is equivalent to t he irrationality
of V3 and one suggest ed t hat (7) and (19) are equiva-
lent. Equivalent or related?
When i nversi on is appl i ed to a t heor em in Euclidean
geomet r y are t he ne w and original t heor ems automati-
cally percei ved as equal l y beautiful? I feel not, and nat-
urally not if surpri se is an aesthetic variable.
Ar e a t h e o r e m a nd its dual equal l y beaut i f ul ?
Dougl a s Ho f s t a d t e r s u g g e s t e d t ha t De s a r g u e s ' s
t heor em (its own dual) mi ght have been i ncl uded, and
wo u l d have gi ven a ve r y hi gh scor e t o Mor l ey' s
t heor em on t he trisectors of t he angles of a triangle.
Now, Morl ey' s t heor em follows from t he t ri gonomet -
rical identity,
1/4 sin 30 = [sin 0] [sin (~/3 - 0)] [sin ('rr/3 + 0)].
How come one particular t ransformat i on of this i den-
tity into triangle t erms is t hought so beautiful? Is it
part l y a surpri se factor, whi ch t he pedest r i an i dent i t y
lacks?
Th e me 9: General vers us Spe c i f i c
Har dl y t ouched on by r espondent s, t he quest i on of
general vs. specific seems i mpor t ant to me so I shall
quot e Paul Hal mos [5]: "' Stein' s (harmonic analysis)
and Shel ah' s (set theory) . . . r epr esent what seem to
be t wo diametrically opposi t e psychological at t i t udes
to ma t h e ma t i c s . . . The cont rast bet ween t hem can be
descri bed (inaccurately, but per haps suggestively) by
t he wor ds special and general . . . . Stein talked about
si ngul ar integrals . . . [Shelah] said, early on: 'I love
mat hemat i cs because I love general i t y, ' and he was off
and r unni ng, classifying st ruct ures whose el ement s
wer e st ruct ures of st ruct ures of st ruct ures. "
Fr eeman Dyson [4] has di scussed what he calls "ac-
ci dent al beaut y" and associated it wi t h unfashi onabl e
mat hemat i cs. Roger Sollie, a physicist, admi t t ed, "I
t end to favour ' formulas' i nvol vi ng ~r," and scored (14)
al most as hi gh as (5) and (8). Is "rr, and anyt hi ng to do
wi t h it, col oured by t he feeling t hat -a" is uni que, t hat
there is no ot her number like it?
Th e me 10: Idi osyncrat i c Re s po ns e s
Several readers illustrated t he br eadt h of i ndi vi dual
responses. Mood was rel evant to Alan Laverty: "The
scores I gave to [several] woul d fluctuate according t o
mood a nd ci r cumst ance. Ext r eme exampl e: at one
poi nt I was consi deri ng giving (13) a 10, but I finally
deci ded it just di dn' t thrill me ver y much. " He gave
i t a 2.
Shirley Ulrich "' could not assign comparative scores
to t he . . . i t ems consi dered as one gr oup, " so split
t hem i nt o geomet r i c i t ems and numer i c i t ems, and
scored each group separately.
R. S. D. Thomas wrote: "I feel that negativity [(7),
(8), (19) and (22)] makes beaut y har d to achieve.' "
Philosophical orientation came out in t he r esponse
of J onat han Wat son (soft ware desi gner , phi l osophy
major, r eads M a t h e m a t i c a l I n t e l l i g e n c e r for foundat i onal
interest): "I am a c ons t r uc t i vi s t . . , and so l ower ed t he
score for (3), al t hough you can also expr ess t hat
t heor em const ruct i vel y. " He adds, " . . . t he quest i on-
nai r e i ndi r ect l y r ai ses f ounda t i ona l i s s u e s - - o n e
t heor em is as t rue as anot her, but beaut y is a huma n
criterion. And beaut y is tied to usef ul ness. "
Co nc l us i o n
From a small survey, crude in construction, no posi-
tive concl usi on is safe. However , I will dr aw t he nega-
tive concl usi on t hat t he i dea t hat mat hemat i ci ans
largely agree in t hei r aesthetic j udgement s is at best
grossl y oversi mpl i fi ed. Syl vest er descri bed mat he-
matics as t he st udy of di fference in similarity and simi-
l ari t y i n di fference. He was not charact eri si ng onl y
4 0 THE MATHEMATICAL INTELLIGENCER VOL. 12, NO. 3, 1990
mat hemat i cs. Aest het i cs has t he same complexity, and
bot h perspect i ves requi re investigation.
I will comment on some possibilities for furt her re-
search. Har dy asser t ed t hat a beaut i ful piece of mat he-
mat i cs shoul d di spl ay general i t y, unexpect ednes s ,
dept h, inevitability, and economy. "Inevi t abi l i t y" is
per haps Har dy' s own idiosyncracy: it is not in ot her
anal yses I have come across. Shoul d it be?
Such lists, not l i nked to actual exampl es, per haps
r epr esent the maxi mum possi bl e level of agreement ,
preci sel y because t hey are so unspecific. At t he level of
this quest i onnai re, t he vari et y of r esponses suggest s
t hat i ndi vi dual s' i nt erpret at i ons of t hose generalities
are qui t e varied. Are t hey? How? Why?
Hal mos ' s general i t y-speci fi ci t y di mens i on may be
compar ed to this comment by Saunders Mac Lane [9]:
"I adopt ed a st andar d pos i t i on- - you must speci fy t he
subj ect of interest, set up t he needed axioms, and de-
fine t he t erms of reference. At i yah much preferred t he
style of the t heoret i cal physicists. For t hem, whe n a
ne w i dea comes up, one does not pause to defi ne it,
because to do so woul d be a damagi ng constraint. In-
st ead t hey talk a r ound about t he i dea, devel op its
vari ous connect i ons, and finally come up wi t h a much
mor e suppl e and richer not i on . . . . Howe ve r I per-
si st ed in t he posi t i on t hat as mat hemat i ci ans we must
know wher eof we speak . . . . This i nst ance may serve
to illustrate t he poi nt t hat t here is now no agr eement
as to how to do mat hemat i cs . . . . "
Apar t from a s ki ng- - Wa s t here ever?---such differ-
ences in appr oach will al most certainly affect aesthetic
j udgement s ; ma ny ot her br oad di f f er ences be t we e n
mat hemat i ci ans may have t he same effect.
Changes over t i me seem to be central for t he indi-
vi dual and explain h o w one criterion can contradict
anot her. Surprise and myst er y will be st r ongest at t he
start. An initial sol ut i on may i nt r oduce a degr ee of
generality, dept h, and simplicity, to be f ol l owed by
f ur t her ques t i ons and f ur t her sol ut i ons, si nce t he
richest pr obl ems do not reach a final state in their first
incarnation. A ne w poi nt of vi ew raises surpri se anew,
muddi es t he appar ent l y clear wat er s, and suggest s
great er dept h or br oader generality. Ho w do aesthetic
j udge me nt s change and devel op, i n qua nt i t y and
quality, duri ng this t emporal roller coaster?
Poincar~ and von Neumann, among ot hers, have
emphasi sed t he role of aesthetic j udgement as a heu-
ristic aid in the pr ocess of mat hemat i cs, t hough liable
to mi sl ead on occasion, like all such assistance. Ho w
do i ndi vi dual s' j udgement s aid t hem in their work, at
ever y level from preference for geomet r y over anal-
ysis, or what ever, t o t he most mi croscopi c levels of
mat hemat i cal t hi nki ng?
Mathematical aest het i cs shares much wi t h t he aes-
thetics of ot her subj ect s and not j ust t he har d sciences.
Ther e is no space t o di scuss a vari et y of exampl es,
t hough I will ment i on t he related concept s of i somor-
phi sm and met aphor. Her e is one vi ew of surprise [6]:
"Fi ne writing, according to Addi son, consists of senti-
ment s whi ch are natural, wi t hout bei ng obvi ous . . . .
On t he ot her hand, product i ons whi ch are merel y sur-
pri si ng, wi t hout bei ng nat ural , can never give any
lasting ent er t ai nment to t he mi nd. "
Ho w mi ght "nat ural " be i nt erpret ed in mat hemat -
ical t erms? Le Lionnais us ed t he same wor d. Is it t r ut h
t hat is bot h nat ural and beaut i ful ? How about Har dy' s
"i nevi t abl e?" Is not gr oup t heor y an historically inevi-
table devel opment , and also natural, in t he sense t hat
gr oup st ruct ures wer e t here to be det ect ed, sooner or
later? Is not t he nat ural ness and beaut y of such struc-
t ur es r el at ed t o de pt h and t he rol e of abst r act i on,
whi ch pr ovi des a ground, as it were, against whi ch
t he i ndi vi dual i t y of ot her less general mat hemat i cal
entities is highlighted?
Mat hemat i cs, I am sure, can onl y be most deepl y
under s t ood in t he context of all human life. In partic-
ular, beaut y in mat hemat i cs mus t be i ncorporat ed i nt o
any adequat e epi st emol ogy of mat hemat i cs. Philoso-
phi es of mat hemat i cs t hat i gnore beaut y will be i nher-
ent l y def ect i ve and i ncapabl e of ef f ect i vel y i nt er-
pret i ng t he activities of mat hemat i ci ans [12].
Re f e r e n c e s
1. W. Burnside, Proceedings of the London Mathematical So-
ciety (2), 7 (1980), 4.
2. Mr. Davies, Historical notices respecting an ancient
problem, The Mathematician 3 (1849), 225.
3. T. Dreyfus and T. Eisenberg, On the aesthetics of mathe-
matical thought, For the Learning of Mathematics 6 (1986).
See also the letter in the next issue and the author' s
reply.
4. Freeman J. Dyson, Unfashionable pursuits, The Mathe-
matical Intelligencer 5, no. 3 (1983), 47.
5. P. R. Halmos, Why is a congress? The Mathematical Intel-
ligencer 9, no. 2 (1987), 20.
6. David Hume, On simplicity and refinement in writing,
Selected English Essays, W. Peacock, (ed.) Oxford: Oxford
University Press (1911), 152.
7. F. Le Lionnais, Beauty in mathematics, Great Currents of
Mathematical Thought, (F. Le Lionnais, ed.), Pinter and
Kline, trans. New York: Dover, n.d. 128.
8. J. E. Littlewood, A Mathematician's Miscellany, New York:
Methuen (1963), 85.
9. Saunders Mac Lane, The health of mathematics, The
Mathematical Intelligencer 5, no. 4 (1983), 53.
10. Roger Penrose, The role of aesthetics in pure and ap-
plied mathematical research, Bulletin of the Institute of
Mathematics and its Applications 10 (1974), 268.
11. Ibid., 267.
12. David Wells, Beauty, mathematics, and Philip Kitcher,
Studies of Meaning, Language and Change 21 (1988).
13. David Wells, Mathematicians and dissidence, Studies of
Meaning, Language and Change 17 (1986).
19 Menelik Road
London NW2 3RJ
England
THE MATHEMATICAL INTELLIGENCER VOL. 12, NO. 3, 1990 41