Henri Poincaré Quotes

Logic sometimes creates monsters.

Most striking at first is this appearance of sudden illumination, a manifest sign of long, unconscious prior work. The role of this unconscious work in mathematical invention appears to me incontestable.

John Stuart Mill understood the word existence in a material and empirical sense; he meant that in defining a circle we assert that there are round things in nature.
In this form his opinion is inadmissible. Mathematics is independent of the existence of material objects. In mathematics the word exist can only have one meaning ; it signifies exemption from contradiction.

We should like to represent... the... universe, and... feel... we understood it. We... never can attain this representation: our weakness is too great. But... we desire... to conceive an infinite intelligence... which should see all, and... classify all in its time, as we classify, in our time, the little we see. ...[T]his supreme intelligence would be only a ; infinite in one sense... limited in another, since it would have... imperfect recollection of the past... otherwise all recollections would be equally present... and for it there would be no time.

If we study the history of science we see happen two inverse phenomena... Sometimes simplicity hides under complex appearances; sometimes it is the simplicity which is apparent, and which disguises extremely complicated realities.
...No doubt, if our means of investigation should become more and more penetrating, we should discover the simple under the complex, then the complex under the simple, then again the simple under the complex, and so on, without our being able to foresee what will be the last term. We must stop somewhere, and that science may be possible, we must stop when we have found simplicity. This is the only ground on which we can rear the edifice of our generalizations.

It's through science that we prove, but through intuition that we discover.

The essential characteristic of reasoning by recurrence [induction] is that it contains, condensed, so to speak, in a single formula, an infinity of syllogisms.

How is it that there are so many minds that are incapable of understanding mathematics? ... the skeleton of our understanding, ... and actually they are the majority. ... We have here a problem that is not easy of solution, but yet must engage the attention of all who wish to devote themselves to education.

Le cerveau du savant, qui n'est qu'un coin de l'Univers, ne pourra jamais contenir l'univers tout entier

The mind has the faculty of creating symbols.... Its power is limited only by the necessity of avoiding all contradiction; but the mind only makes use of this faculty if experience furnishes it a stimulus thereto

Having reached Coutances, we entered an omnibus to go some place or other. At the moment when I put my foot on the step the idea came to me, without anything in my former thoughts seeming to have paved the way for it, that the transformations I had used to define the Fuchsian functions were identical with those of non-Euclidean geometry. I did not verify the idea; I should not have had time, as, upon taking my seat in the omnibus, I went on with a conversation already commenced, btu I felt a perfect certainty. On my return to Caen, for conscience's sake I verified the result at my leisure.

[This] shows, perhaps, why we have tried to put all physical phenomena into the same frame. But that can not pass for a definition of simultaneity, since this hypothetical intelligence, even if it existed, would be for us impenetrable. It is... necessary to seek something else.

[W]hat postulate do we implicitly admit? It is that the duration of two identical phenomena is the same; or... that the same causes take the same time to produce the same effects. ...Is it impossible that experiment may some day contradict our postulate?

The very possibility of mathematical science seems an insoluble contradiction. If this science is deductive in appearance only, from where does it get its perfect rigor that no one dares to doubt? If, on the contrary, all the propositions it sets forth can be derived from one another by the rules of formal logic, why is mathematics not reducible to an immense tautology? Syllogism can teach us nothing that is essentially new and, if everything originated in the principle of identity, it should also be possible to reduce everything to it. Are we then to concede that the statements of all those theorems filling so many volumes are merely roundabout ways of saying that A is A?

... les traités de mécanique ne distinguent pas bien nettement ce qui est expérience, ce qui est raisonnement mathématique, ce qui est convention, ce qui est hypothèse.