The history of every major galactic civilization tends to pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why, and Where phases. For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question ‘How can we eat?’, the second by the question ‘Why do we eat?’ and the third by the question, ‘Where shall we have lunch?’ (Douglas Adams, “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy“)
One can roughly divide mathematical education into three stages:
- The “pre-rigorous” stage, in which mathematics is taught in an informal, intuitive manner, based on examples, fuzzy notions, and hand-waving. (For instance, calculus is usually first introduced in terms of slopes, areas, rates of change, and so forth.) The emphasis is more on computation than on theory. This stage generally lasts until the early undergraduate years.
- The “rigorous” stage, in which one is now taught that in order to do maths “properly”, one needs to work and think in a much more precise and formal manner (e.g. re-doing calculus by using epsilons and deltas all over the place). The emphasis is now primarily on theory. This stage usually occupies the later undergraduate and early graduate years.
- The “post-rigorous” stage, in which one has grown comfortable with all the rigorous foundations of one’s chosen field, and is now ready to revisit and refine one’s pre-rigorous intuition on the subject, but this time with the intuition solidly buttressed by rigorous theory. (For instance, in this stage one would be able to quickly and accurately perform computations in vector calculus by using analogies with scalar calculus, or informal and semi-rigorous use of infinitesimals, big-O notation, and so forth, and be able to convert all such calculations into a rigorous argument whenever required.) The emphasis is now on applications, intuition, and the “big picture”. This stage usually occupies the late graduate years and beyond.
The transition from the first stage to the second is well known to be rather traumatic, with the dreaded “proof-type questions” being the bane of many a maths undergraduate. (See also “There’s more to maths than grades and exams and methods“.) But the transition from the second to the third is equally important, and should not be forgotten.
It is of course vitally important that you know how to think rigorously, as this gives you the discipline to avoid many common errors and purge many misconceptions. Unfortunately, this has the unintended consequence that “fuzzier” or “intuitive” thinking (such as heuristic reasoning, judicious extrapolation from examples, or analogies with other contexts such as physics) gets deprecated as “non-rigorous”. All too often, one ends up discarding one’s initial intuition and is only able to process mathematics at a formal level, thus getting stalled at the second stage of one’s mathematical education.
The point of rigour is not to destroy all intuition; instead, it should be used to destroy bad intuition while clarifying and elevating good intuition. It is only with a combination of both rigorous formalism and good intuition that one can tackle complex mathematical problems; one needs the former to correctly deal with the fine details, and the latter to correctly deal with the big picture. Without one or the other, you will spend a lot of time blundering around in the dark (which can be instructive, but is highly inefficient). So once you are fully comfortable with rigorous mathematical thinking, you should revisit your intuitions on the subject and use your new thinking skills to test and refine these intuitions rather than discard them. One way to do this is to ask yourself dumb questions; another is to relearn your field.
The ideal state to reach is when every heuristic argument naturally suggests its rigorous counterpart, and vice versa. Then you will be able to tackle maths problems by using both halves of your brain at once – i.e. the same way you already tackle problems in “real life”.

17 comments
Comments feed for this article
19 February, 2009 at 9:32 pm
A Math Student
Very nice article, Dr. Tao….
I have a short question; Whenever I try to explain, or discuss math with my friends, I always end up confusing myself… are there any ways to fix it?? is it because i haven’t learned the material correctly ??
21 January, 2010 at 1:39 am
Tim vB
To be able to explain something is the ultimate proof that you understand it. You should constantly explain what you try to understand, to your friends or to yourself, to check if you have any questions.
Feeling confused is a good thing, it proves that you notice that you have questions – try to formulate them as precise as possible. Everyone who tries to learn math is confused from time to time, and has to work hard to overcome it, even someone like Gauss was and had to.
4 March, 2009 at 3:37 am
muraii
Hi, A Math Student,
From my experience, I’d recommend you continue trying to explain and discuss math. My wife is not mathematically inclined, but I have found that talking through a problem with her provides me grounding, and uses parts of the brain quiet introspection doesn’t. It’s a different means of metabolizing the problem and its foundations.
Continuing to discuss math should therefore aid you in fixing the confusion.
Cheers,
Daniel
4 June, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Some context « Annoying Precision
[...] generalize technical arguments in non-technical but still enlightening ways. Once I learned that there’s more to mathematics than rigor, I realized that what Tao and Gowers do mentally is something like an enormous feat of compression. [...]
19 June, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Hamilton
Could you guide us toward books that can help people with the transitions from 1-2 and 2-3?
21 January, 2010 at 3:57 am
Tim vB
IMHO it’s unlikely that you can learn this from books, this is a skill that you can only learn by interaction with others, e.g. your advisors.
1-2 will happen by solving the proof-type excercises that Terry mentions in his posts, 2-3 will happen during the diskussions that you have in class or outside of class with other graduates or professors (the “why should we care”, “what is the big picture”, “how can we use this in a different context”, “how can we generalize that and what does it tell us if we can or can’t” – type of questions).
27 June, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I hate axioms « Annoying Precision
[...] an excessively stifling way to look at mathematics. As Terence Tao points out in his career advice, there’s more to mathematics than rigour and proofs: It is of course vitally important that you know how to think rigorously, as this gives you the [...]
20 January, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Chris
I’d call pre-rigorous the “cargo cult” stage. You’re not doing mathematics, you’re merely performing a very close approximation to it using rote learned rules. It was this sort of mathematics taught in the first year of the undergraduate curriculum at my university which caused me to take physics as my major.
Physicists and engineers call the third type of mathematics you propose a “back of the envelope” calculation. I suspect the less pretentious mathematicians do also. It is the step you use to flesh out a hypothesis before you apply rigour.
20 January, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Terence Tao
Hmm. I think perhaps I would classify the “back of the envelope” calculations as a fourth stage, let’s call it the “heuristic” stage, in this following, almost commuting square:
pre-rigorous —> rigorous
| ……………………….|
v ……………………….v
heuristic —> post-rigorous
As I discussed in the post, mathematicians tend to proceed through the upper route, but I do see the point that physicists and engineers tend to proceed through the lower route. Though, as I said, the diagram doesn’t quite commute; there are some significant cultural differences in doing mathematics that depend on which route one took to achieve the post-rigorous stage.
The distinction between heuristic and post-rigorous is that in the latter, one uses intuition and rigour in an integrated fashion; one knows how to justify one’s intuition and convert it to rigorous arguments, and conversely one knows how to take rigorous arguments and extract an intuitive explanation. For instance, one could convert arguments involving infinitesimals into rigorous epsilon-delta arguments whenever required, and vice versa. At the heuristic level, one could argue accurately with infinitesimals, but might not be able to convert them into a rigorous argument.
Just as mathematicians sometimes get stuck on the rigorous stage, unable to fully develop their intuition, I would imagine that the converse problem can happen to people educated using the physicist/engineer approach, and so miss out on the stereoscopic view that one gets from using both rigour and intuition simultaneously.
21 January, 2010 at 12:32 am
Santosh Bhaskarabhatla
Professor Tao,
Thank you so much for your article! The post-rigorous mindset is a transcendental state that I currently crave. As you have said:
“pre-rigorous —> rigorous
| ……………………….|
v ……………………….v
heuristic —> post-rigorous
…
the diagram doesn’t quite commute; there are some significant cultural differences in doing mathematics that depend on which route one took to achieve the post-rigorous stage.”
I feel this academic/cultural problem is quite serious, because it really hinders so many scientists from becoming better mathematical thinkers. I suffer from it myself. I see it every day amongst my peers, colleagues, and even some professors.
Your article provides me with a map of what I need to do to get towards the post-rigorous thinking: in other words, I should get rigorous mathematical training before it’s too late. I’ve always loved mathematics, and I still do. The only problem is that I have not had the opportunity to study it rigorously and patiently, because I have been focused on other things, namely life sciences. Therefore I have been bogged down with only “heuristics” in my toolbox.
For people in this situation, how can we facilitate the path to the post-rigorous state?
Is the path of the physicist/engineer going to result in a completely different type of post-rigorous state?
For example, Ramanajun is someone who probably did not get sufficient “rigorous” training, but was able to achieve great mathematical success. Are there other potential Ramanujans that may not have the genius to overcome educational limitations?
I feel this is an issue that is particularly important at the frontiers of physics and mathematics, such as the holy grail of a quantum theory of gravity.
Sorry for so many questions. In short, aren’t these two paths to post-rigorous causing a lot of problems? shouldn’t we try to figure out one path for both the future mathematicians and physicists, at least at the undergraduate/early graduate level?
Naively and humbly,
Santosh
(Biochemical Sciences, Harvard College ‘10)
21 January, 2010 at 6:14 am
AKE
The transition from stage one to stage two is often discussed, lamented, justified, lambasted, defended, …. But I haven’t seen anyone isolate and express the equally important transition from stage two to three. Very nice article!
21 January, 2010 at 10:05 am
Teaching Mathematics “in Tunic” « Mathematical Science & Technologies
[...] Terence Tao. There’s more to mathematics than rigour and proofs. Available online from the author’s website. [...]
21 January, 2010 at 10:51 pm
solrize
Heh, that is pretty neat, a commutative diagram for reaching post-rigor.
22 January, 2010 at 7:36 am
biologize
why doesn’t the progress from step 2 to 3 for physicists vs mathematicians commute as nicely as your diagram on paper?
22 January, 2010 at 9:54 am
Terence Tao
People who learn (say) English as their native tongue, and French as a second language, are usually somewhat distinguishable from those who learned these languages in the other order, even after acquiring fluency in both languages.
1 February, 2010 at 11:18 am
Good mathematical technique reduces the need for insight « Mathematical Science & Technologies
[...] Medalist Terence Tao has written a short piece that describes the role of rigor and the value of mathematical technique in the training of a mathematician. In the online discussion of this article, he adds two particularly interesting remarks: the first [...]
1 February, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Jonathan Vos Post
“People who learn (say) English as their native tongue, and French as a second language, are usually somewhat distinguishable from those who learned these languages in the other order.” Yes, the sociolinguistics and fMRI studies both show this noncommutivity. See also that Hoijer was also the first to use the term “Sapir-Whorf hypothesis” about the complex of ideas about linguistic relativity. The Strong version
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/language/whorf.html
is out of style. But fun to explore in science fiction, the best being such as:
The Languages of Pao, a novel by Jack Vance, first published in 1958, in which the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is a central theme. This novel centers on a fictional experiment in modeling a civilization by perturbing its language. As the mad scientist behind this experiment, Lord Palafox, says in chapter 9: “We must alter the mental framework of the Paonese people, which is most easily achieved by altering the language.”