Henri Poincaré Quotes

The mind uses its creative faculty only when experience requires it.

I shall conclude that there is in all of us an intuitive notion of the continuum of any number of dimensions whatever because we possess the capacity to construct a physical and mathematical continuum; and that this capacity exists in us before any experience, because, without it, experience properly speaking would be impossible and would be reduced to brute sensations. ... And yet this capacity could be used in different ways; it could enable us to construct a space of four just as well as a space of three dimensions.

The continuum so conceived is only a collection of individuals ranged in a certain order, infinite to one another, it is true, but exterior to one another. This is not the ordinary conception, wherein is supposed between the elements of the continuum a sort of intimate bond which makes of them a whole, where the point does not exist before the line, but the line before the point. Of the celebrated formula “the continuum is unity in multiplicity”, only the multiplicity remains, the unity has disappeared. The analysts are none the less right in defining the continuum as they do, for they always reason on just this as soon as they pique themselves on their rigor. But this is enough to apprise us that the veritable mathematical continuum is a very different thing from that of the physicists and the metaphysicians.

The true geometrician makes this selection judiciously, because he is guided by a sure instinct, or by some vague consciousness of I know not what profounder and more hidden geometry, which alone gives a value to the constructed edifice.
To seek the origin of this instinct, and to study the laws of this profound geometry which can be felt but not expressed, would be a noble task for the philosophers who will not allow that logic is all. But this is not the point of view I wish to take, and this is not the way I wish to state the question. This instinct I have been speaking of is necessary to the discoverer, but it seems at first as if we could do without it for the study of the science once created. Well, what I want to find out is, whether it is true that once the principles of logic are admitted we can, I will not say discover, but demonstrate all mathematical truths without making a fresh appeal to intuition.

It may happen that the motion of a rigid figure is such that all the points of a line belonging to this figure remain motionless while all the points situated outside of this line move. Such a line will be called a straight line.

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.

For fifteen days I strove to prove that there could not be any functions like those I have since called Fuchsian functions. I was then very ignorant; every day I seated myself at my work table, stayed an hour or two, tried a great number of combinations and reached no results. One evening, contrary to my custom, I drank black coffee and could not sleep. Ideas rose in crowds; I felt them collide until pairs interlocked, so to speak, making a stable combination. By the morning I had established the existence of a class of Fuchsian functions, those which come from the hypergeometric series; I had only to write out the results, which took but a few hours.

Cependant quelquefois la vérité nous effraye.

The object of mathematical theories is not to reveal to us the real nature of things; that would be unreasonable claim. Their only object is to coordinate the physical laws with which physical experiments make us acquainted, the enunciation of which, without the aim of mathematics, would be unable to effect.

The syllogism cannot teach us anything essentially new. It must be conceded that mathematical reasoning has of itself a sort of creative virtue, and consequently differs from the syllogism.

In other words, the axioms of geometry (I do not speak of those of arithmetic) are merely disguised definitions.

None of our sensations, isolated, could have conducted us to the idea of space; we are led to it only in studying the laws, according to which these sensations succeed each other.

Logic sometimes breeds monsters. For half a century there has been springing up a host of weird functions, which seem to strive to have as little resemblance as possible to honest functions that are of some use. No more continuity, or else continuity but no derivatives, etc. More than this, from the point of view of logic, it is these strange functions that are the most general; those that are met without being looked for no longer appear as more than a particular case, and they have only quite a little corner left them.

Formerly, when a new function was invented, it was in view of some practical end. To-day they are invented on purpose to show our ancestors' reasonings at fault, and we shall never get anything more than that out of them.

If logic were the teacher's only guide, he would have to begin with the most general, that is to say, with the most weird, functions. He would have to set the beginner to wrestle with this collection of monstrosities. If you don't do so, the logicians might say, you will only reach exactness by stages.

The readings we shall be able to make on our instruments at any instant will depend only on the readings we could have made on these same instruments at the initial instant.

The axioms of geometry therefore are neither synthetic a priori judgments nor experimental facts.