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; and one is expected to be able to comfortably manipulate abstract mathematical objects without focusing too much on what such objects actually “mean”. 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. (Among other things, this can impact one’s ability to read mathematical papers; an overly literal mindset can lead to “compilation errors” when one encounters even a single a typo or ambiguity in such a paper.)
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”.
See also:
- Bill Thurston’s article “On proof and progress in mathematics“;
- this speech by Stephen Fry on the analogous phenomenon that there is more to language than grammar and spelling; and
- Kohlberg’s stages of moral development (which indicate (among other things) that there is more to morality than customs and social approval).

43 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.
1 October, 2011 at 7:25 am
Akram Hassan
Mr. Tim , had Gauss ever been confused ? Is it mentioned anywhere that he had been confused as he worked with mathematics ?
By confusion i mean what happens with “A Math Student” (and me) that at some point i doubt what i thought before that i understood !
thanks
10 December, 2011 at 12:12 am
John Baez
I’m sure Gauss was confused, but he was notoriously reluctant to write up ideas before they were ready – “few but ripe” was his motto – so I don’t think we have much record of him being confused.
It is, however, lots of fun to read his different attempts to prove the fundamental theorem of algebra. I wouldn’t say they’re confused, but since some necessary bits of topology hadn’t been invented yet, they’re a bit informal at points – and it seems like he realized this, because he tried a few different approaches.
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 the 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 at 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, who then 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.”
3 April, 2010 at 5:21 am
Terence Tao’s 3 Stages of Mathematics Education « Mathematics Expressions
[...] What I need is to move from my current pre-rigorous stage to the rigorous stage as described in this post on Terence Tao’s blog. I am unable to compute, and can only use results proven by other [...]
6 April, 2010 at 6:38 am
The Education of Mathematics Interpreters « Mathematics Expressions
[...] Apr 2010 colinwytan Leave a comment Go to comments I refer to Terence Tao’s blog entry on mathematics education again. The three stages pre-rigorous, rigorous and post-rigorous refer actually to the education of [...]
9 May, 2010 at 11:57 pm
数学比严格重要,兼论关于数学的三个境界 | 念敏
[...] Posted on 2010/05, 10 by nianmin 译自陶哲轩的博客 三个境界: 前严格,大学低年级之前 严格,大学高年级到研究生低年级 [...]
10 May, 2010 at 12:18 am
数学比严格重要,兼论关于数学的三个境界 | 念敏
[...] Posted on 2010/05, 10 by nianmin 译自陶哲轩的博客 三个境界: 前严格,大学低年级之前 严格,大学高年级到研究生低年级 [...]
24 October, 2010 at 12:01 pm
.
Mathematics is to make oneself poor. I believe only a chosen few should be left to pursue mathematics. In the regular apart from a few specialized design people in research, no one uses math even in engineering. A liking for math may infact be a curse.
26 October, 2010 at 11:27 pm
Manjunath
Very nice articles which clearly unleash the learning stages. Transition from 1-2 is done by most of the people. But from 2-3 requires a lot, which also decides your field of interest.
Transition from 2-3 involves ‘Analysis’, patience really matters here.
Considering a simple example finding an area.
At rigorous stage is just applying the regular method to get the result.
In post-rigourous it’s more like how result is gonna change with change in the shape of the curve.
Heuristic is just an educated guess, to say whether its gonna increase or decrease based on the shape change….
Manjunath
27 October, 2010 at 11:11 pm
AMS Graduate Student Blog » Blog Archive » Beyond Rigor
[...] By Kareem Carr At first, I saw mountains as mountains and rivers as rivers. Then, I saw mountains were not mountain… [...]
28 February, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Anonymous
Hi, Terence Tao. I always loved physics and mathematics, and I am an aspiring primary and secondary education mathematics teacher in Brazil. I’m studying plane geometry from a text book that uses Hilbert’s axioms. I can follow the given proofs I read, and sometimes even find alternative proofs with a similar strategy of the one I read. But often I study a chapter and five days after I can’t prove the theorems I studied the proofs, and then eventually I give up and look at the book. I never had this problem when my “proofs” where just intuitive arguments to convince me, because once I found one I would always remember it, at least slight and could reconstruct it at any time. I was really eager to learn how to really prove all those things, and because of that, I feel pathetic, because I know this is the basic of the basic of the basic in mathematics, and not even near the advanced stuff and if I become a teacher maybe I won’t use that kind of proofs. Because of that I would really like to know your opinion about this, because I don’t feel I’m advancing. Sorry about my English.
6 March, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Anonymous
Well, I think I solved my problem. It was that I was only just focusing on each step in a mechanical way but I wasn’t trying to find the general idea behind the proof. It seems it’s easy to reconstruct a proof after you find it. Maybe kind off-topic, sorry.
And this text is amazing, thanks for it.
10 December, 2011 at 12:20 am
John Baez
Yes, the key is to remember not the steps of the proof but the “idea” (or ideas) of the proof, which are the crucial non-obvious insights contained in the proof. If you get good at the mechanical aspects of proving things, you can fill in the details of the proof as long as you remember the idea.
The detailed steps of a proof can actually be quite distracting when you’re trying to see the idea – especially when someone writes a proof in more detail than you need. So when I read a proof, I first try to skim it, ignoring everything that looks boring, and try to spot the key ideas. Once I know these I can often fill in the details myself. (At least this is true for fairly easy theorems.)
15 March, 2011 at 11:05 am
Anonymous
If one restricts Spinoza’s three types of knowledge to the mathematical realm, does one obtain the three kinds of mathematical thinking described above?
3 April, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Toby Bartels
I’m reminded of the Zen koan (best known as paraphrased by folk singer Donovan Leitch): ‘First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.’ This pictorial explanation http://www.beingyoga.com/mountains-not_mountains.gif seems to fit best.
3 April, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Toby Bartels
@ Anonymous from three or four back: It’s completely on topic! You were focusing too much on the rigour. Stand back and let mountains be mountains again (let lines and planes be lines and planes for a while, instead of tables and beer mugs), before you decompose them into logical fundamentals for the proof.
8 September, 2011 at 11:03 am
Ming
I’m a first-year university student who is taking the real analysis course. Like a lot of students in my class, I find this course very hard compared to other courses such as abstract algebra. Is the main goal of real analysis course teaching us how to prove theorems rigorously? Can anyone give me some advices about studying analysis?
Thanks a lot!
8 September, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Toby Bartels
>Is the main goal of real analysis course teaching us how to prove theorems rigorously?
Perhaps not the *main* goal, but I think that this certainly does happen, to a large degree, in this course. Probably there should be a course specifically on proving theorems, but usually there isn’t, so you have to pick it up along the way, and real analysis is a good place to do that.
By the way, my link (3 comments back) to a picture has gone away, but here it is again: http://web.archive.org/web/20060621134626/http://beingyoga.com/mountains-not_mountains.gif
19 September, 2011 at 8:58 am
Does 0.999… Really Equal 1? | Girls' Angle
[...] There’s really no point in arguing about whether two things are the same before the things being compared are clearly defined. Understanding this can save a lot of time and not just in math. I wish Girls’ Angle could have a penny for every hour that was lost by people arguing over things that were never clearly defined. Finally, one warning: while rigorous proof settles the question, this is not the same as saying that understanding is equivalent to rigorous proof. For more, see Terence Tao’s There’s more to mathematics than rigour and proofs. [...]
2 October, 2011 at 7:03 am
Akram Hassan
Great article Dr.Tao , i have an engineering degree and did many math undergraduate courses such as multivariable calculus , differential equations and linear algebra (all with per-rigorous approach) , i am considering graduate studies in mathematics , I’m really interested in the word “rigor” , my question is : how does that transition from one stage to another really happen ?
do the math schools revisit the same topic time after time with different approaches to achieve that transition ? i mean do the students first study calculus in terms of slopes, areas, rates of change, and so forth then when they reach the next level they study the same topic in terms of epsilons and deltas ?
or is it a personal responsibility of the student to revisit the subject to emphasize the new level of understanding ?
thank you
10 December, 2011 at 11:44 pm
paramanands
Unfortunately I haven’t had the chance to go beyond stage 2, but I had pretty good experience with transition from stage 1 to stage 2 and I wish that these stages coexisted simultaneously in a curriculum. The real excitement in mathematics comes when all the mysteries of stage 1 are finally explained in stage 2. Frankly speaking I have been unable to understand why mathematics educators try very hard to separate the computational aspects from the theoretical foundations. As an example in case of calculus all the mystery (i.e. gap between stage 1 and 2) rests on the theory of real numbers which is only slightly harder than the a theory of rational numbers if taught the right way (see 1st chapter of Hardy’s Pure Mathematics).
14 December, 2011 at 2:51 pm
“La matemática es más que rigor y demostraciones” | blocdemat
[...] Una sección que es una joya de leer es la de “career advice“. Hay una entrada en particular que me encanta, que es esta: There’s more to mathematics than rigor and proofs. [...]
15 December, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Quora
What is it like to have an understanding of very advanced mathematics?…
* You can answer many seemingly difficult questions very quickly. But you are not very impressed by what can look like magic, because you know the trick. The trick is that your brain can quickly decide if question is answerable by one of a small number…
23 December, 2011 at 8:00 am
Mathematics by samadhi - Pearltrees
[...] 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; and one is expected to be able to comfortably manipulate abstract mathematical objects without focusing too much on what such objects actually “mean”. There’s more to mathematics than rigour and proofs « What’s new [...]
28 December, 2011 at 9:45 am
Dan Schmidt
This is very analogous to the progression of stages that chess players go through. Roughly, beginners are in stage 1, strong amateurs are in stage 2, and professional players are in stage 3.
20 January, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Researching and Rediscovering Mathematics | Ivan Wangsa C.L.
[...] Saya teringat blog post dari Terrence Tao. Buat yang nggak tau, Terrence Tao itu peraih medali emas termuda di IMO, pada umur 13 tahun, di IMO 1988, Australia. Sekarang beliau menjadi professor di UCLA, California. Beliau bilang, kalau pembelajaran matematika itu bisa dibagi menjadi 3 fase: [...]
15 April, 2012 at 5:57 am
Postulates, Proofs, and Obviousness | Girls' Angle
[...] also suggest reading Terrence Tao’s blog post There’s more to mathematics than rigour and proof and the references within. Your question also implicitly asks about the relationship between [...]