How we think about X

It is notable that many questions posted at MathOverflow are like, “How should I think about X?”, where X can be any type of mathematical object (quotient group, scheme, fibration, cohomology and so on).  Some crotchety contributors to that group want the questions to be specific and well-defined, but “how do I think about…” questions  are in my opinion among the most interesting questions on the website.  (See note [a]).

Don’t confuse “How do I think about X” with “What is X really?” (pace Reuben Hersh).  The latter is a philosophical question.  As far as I am concerned, thinking about how to think about X is very important and needs lots of research by mathematicians, educators, and philosophers — for practical reasons: how you think about it helps you do it.   What it really is is no help and anyway no answer may exist.

Inert and eternal

The idea that mathematical objects should be thought of as  “inert” and “eternal”  has been around for awhile.  (Never mind whether they really are inert and eternal.)  I believe, and have said in the past [1], that thinking about them that way clears up a lot of confusion in newbies concerning logical inference.

• That mathematical objects are “inert” means that the do not cause anything. They have no effect on the real world or on each other.
• That they are “eternal” means they don’t change over time.

Naturally, a function (a mathematical object) can model change over time, and it can model causation, too, in that it can describe a process that starts in one state and achieves stasis in another state (that is just one way of relation functions to causation).  But when we want to prove something about a type of math object, our metaphorical understanding of them has to lose all its life and color and go dead, like the dry bones before Ezekiel started nagging them.

It’s only mathematical reasoning if it is about dead things

The effect on logical inference can be seen in the fact that “and” is a commutative logical operator. 

• “x > 1 and x < 3″ means exactly the same thing as “x < 3 and x > 1″
• “He picked up his umbrella and went outside” does not mean the same thing as “He went outside and picked up his umbrella”.

The most profound effect concerns logical implication.  “If  x > 1 then x > 0″ says nothing to suggest that x > 1 causes it to be the case that x > 0.  It is purely a statement about the inert truth sets of two predicates lying around the mathematical boneyard of objects:  The second set includes the first one.  This makes vacuous implication perfectly obvious.  (The number -1 lies in neither truth set and is irrelevant to the fact of inclusion).

Inert and eternal rethought

There are better metaphors than these.  The point about the number 3 is that you think about it as outside time. In the world where you think about 3 or any other mathematical object, all questions about time are meaningless.

• In the sentence “3 is a prime”, we need a new tense in English like the tenses ancient (very ancient) Greek and Hebrew were supposed to have (perfect with gnomic meaning), where a fact is asserted without reference to time.
• Since causation involves this happens, then this happens, all questions about causation are meaningless, too.  It is not true that 3 causes 6 to be composite, while being irrelevant to the fact that 35 is composite.

This single metaphor “outside time” thus can replace the two metaphors “inert” and “eternal” and (I think) shows that the latter two are really two aspects of the same thing.

Caveat

Thinking of math objects as outside time is a Good Thing when you are being rigorous, for example doing a proof.  The colorful, changing, full-of-life way of thinking of math that occurs when you say things like the statements below is vitally necessary for inspiring proofs and for understanding how to apply the mathematics.

• The harmonic series goes to infinity in a very leisurely fashion.
• A function is a machine — when you dump in a number it grinds away and spits out another number.
• At zero, this function vanishes.

Acknowledgment

Thanks to Jody Azzouni for the italics (see [3]).

Notes

a.  Another interesting type of question  “in what setting does such and such a question (or proof) make sense?” .  An example is my question in [2].

References

1.  Proofs without dry bones

2. Where does the generic triangle live?

3. The revolution in technical exposition II.