, Volume 68, Issue 3, pp 421–435

Pi on Earth, or Mathematics in the Real World

Original Article


We explore aspects of an experimental approach to mathematical proof, most notably number crunching, or the verification of subsequent particular cases of universal propositions. Since the rise of the computer age, this technique has indeed conquered practice, although it implies the abandonment of the ideal of absolute certainty. It seems that also in mathematical research, the qualitative criterion of effectiveness, i.e. to reach one’s goals, gets increasingly balanced against the quantitative one of efficiency, i.e. to minimize one’s means/ends ratio. Our story will lead to the consideration of some limit cases, opening up the possibility of proofs of infinite length being surveyed in a finite time. By means of example, this should show that mathematical practice in vital aspects depends upon what the actual world is like.


  1. Aste, T., & Weaire, D. (2000). The pursuit of perfect packing. Bristol: Institute of Physics Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Borwein, J. M., & Bailey, D. (2004). Mathematics by experiment. Plausible reasoning in the 21st century. Natick, MA: A K Peters.Google Scholar
  3. Borwein, J. M., Bailey, D., & Girgensohn, R. (2004). Experimentation in mathematics. Computational paths to discovery. Natick, MA: A K Peters.Google Scholar
  4. Corfield, D. (2004). Mathematical kinds, or being kind to mathematics. Philosophica, 74, 37–62.Google Scholar
  5. Crandall, R., & Pomerance, C. (2001). Prime numbers. A computational perspective. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Earman, J. (1995). Bangs, crunches, whimpers, and shrieks. Singularities and acausalities in relativistic spacetimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Earman, J., & Norton, J. (1996). Infinite pains: The trouble with supertasks. In A. Morton & S. P. Stich (Eds.), Benacerraf and his critics (pp. 231–261). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Echeverría, J. (1996). Empirical methods in mathematics. A case-study: Goldbach’s conjecture. In G. Munevar (Ed.), Spanish studies in the philosophy of science. Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 186, pp. 19–55). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Elkies, N. (1988). On A 4 + B 4 + C 4 = D 4. Mathematics of Computation, 51, 825–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gödel, K. (1983). What is Cantor’s continuum problem. In P. Benacerraf & H. Putnam (Eds.), Philosophy of mathematics. Selected readings (pp. 470–485). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2nd ed. of the 1964 original).Google Scholar
  11. Goldreich, O. (1996). A taxonomy of proof systems. In L. A. Hemaspaandra & A. L. Selman (Eds.), Complexity theory retrospective II (pp. 109–134). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Hales, T. (2000). Cannonballs and honeycombs. Notices of the AMS, 47(4), 440–449.Google Scholar
  13. Hersh, R. (1991). Mathematics has a front and a back. Synthese, 88, 127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jaffe, A., & Quinn, F. (1993). ‘Theoretical mathematics’: Toward a cultural synthesis of mathematics and theoretical physics. Bulletin (New Series) of the AMS, 29(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Laraudogoitia, J. P. (2004). Supertasks. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2004 Edition). URL= archives/win2004/entries/spacetime-supertasks.
  16. Maddy, P. (1998). How to be a naturalist about mathematics. In H. G. Dales & G. Oliveri (Eds.), Truth in mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  17. Mehrtens, H. (1976). T. S. Kuhn’s theories and mathematics: A discussion paper on the ‘new historiography’ of mathematics. Historia Mathematica, 3, 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Németi, I., & Andréka, H. (2006). Can general relativistic computers break the turing barrier? In A. Beckmann, et al. (Eds.), Logical approaches to computational barriers (Vol. 3988, pp. 398–412). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Oliveira e Silva, T. (2007). Verification of the Goldbach conjecture. NMBRTHRY mailing list, 26 Apr 2007. URL =
  20. Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Rav, Y. (1999). Why do we prove theorems? Philosophia Mathematica III, 7(1), 5–41.Google Scholar
  22. Singh, S. (1997). Fermat’s enigma. The epic quest to solve the world’s greatest mathematical problem. New York: Walker and Company.Google Scholar
  23. Solomon, R. (2001). A brief history of the classification of the finite simple groups. Bulletin (New Series) of the AMS, 38(3), 315–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Takeuti, G. (1978). Two applications of logic to mathematics. Publications of the mathematical society of Japan (Vol. 13). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Tappenden, J. (2005). Proof style and understanding in mathematics I: Visualization, unification and axiom choice. In P. Mancosu, K. F. Jørgensen, & S. A. Pedersen (Eds.), Visualization, explanation and reasoning styles in mathematics (Synthese library) (Vol. 327, pp. 147–214). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Thurston, W. P. (1994). On proof and progress in mathematics. Bulletin (New Series) of the AMS, 30(2), 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Van Bendegem, J. P. (1998). What, if anything, is an experiment in mathematics? In D. Anapolitanos (Ed.), Philosophy and the many faces of science (pp. 172–182). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  28. Van Bendegem, J. P. (2004). The creative growth of mathematics. In D. Gabbay, et al. (Eds.), Logic, epistemology and the unity of science (Vol. 1, pp. 229–255). Kluwer: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  29. Van Bendegem, J. P. (2005). The Collatz conjecture. A case study in mathematical problem solving. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 14, 7–23.Google Scholar
  30. Van Bendegem, J. P., & Van Kerkhove, B. (2004). The unreasonable richness of mathematics. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(3), 525–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Kerkhove, B. (2005). Aspects of informal mathematics. In G. Sica (Ed.), Advanced studies in mathematics and logic (Vol. 1, pp. 267–351). Milano: Polimetrica.Google Scholar
  32. Wang, Y. (2004). The Goldbach conjecture. Series in pure mathematics (Vol. 4). Singapore: World Scientific (2nd ed. of the 1984 original).Google Scholar
  33. Welch, P. D. (to appear). Turing unbound: On the extent of computation in Malament–Hogarth spacetimes. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
  34. Wigner, E. (1960). The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilson, R. (2003). Four colors suffice. How the map problem was solved. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Zeilberger, D. (1993). Theorems for a price: Tomorrow’s semi-rigorous mathematical culture. Notices of the AMS, 40, 978–981.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Logic and Philosophy of ScienceVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselBelgium

Personalised recommendations