As the prerogative of Natural Science is to cultivate a taste for observation, so that of Mathematics is, almost from the starting point, to stimulat… - James Joseph Sylvester

It always seems to me absurd to speak of a complete proof of a theorem being rigorously demonstrated. An incomplete proof is no proof and a mathematical truth not rigorously demonstrated is not demonstrated at all. I do not mean to deny that there are mathematical truths, morally certain, which defy and will probably to the end of time to defy proof, as, e.g. that every indecomposable integer polynomial function must represent an infinitude of primes. I have sometimes thought that the profound mystery which envelops our conceptions relative to prime numbers depends upon the limitation of our faculties in regard to time, which like space may be in its essence poly-dimensional, and that this and such sort of truths would become self-evident to a being whose mode of perception is according to superficially as distinguished from our own limitation to linearly extended time.

It seems to be expected of every pilgrim up the slopes of the mathematical Parnassus, that he will at some point or other of his journey sit down and invent a definite integral or two towards the increase of the common stock.

Number, place, and combination . . . the three intersecting but distinct spheres of thought to which all mathematical ideas admit of being referred.