"The traditional mathematician recognizes and appreciates mathematical elegance when he sees it. I propose to go one step further, and to consider elegance an essential ingredient of mathematics: if it is clumsy, it is not mathematics"
About this Quote
For Dijkstra, elegance is not decoration but a criterion of legitimacy. Mathematics earns its authority by showing why something could not be otherwise; elegance signals that necessity. When an argument or construction is simple, symmetric, and economical, it reveals the right concepts. Clumsiness, by contrast, often betrays a poor choice of definitions, awkward notation, or a failure to find the invariant that makes the result transparent. The claim is deliberately provocative: a muddled proof may be correct, but until it is distilled to a lucid core, it has not reached the mathematical standard.
This stance fits Dijkstra’s larger project. A pioneer of structured programming and program correctness, he treated programming as a mathematical activity in which proofs and programs are two views of the same design. He prized invariants, judicious abstraction, and the ruthless elimination of special cases. Elegance is not an aesthetic extra; it is the evidence that the right abstraction has been found. In software as in pure mathematics, patches, exceptions, and case explosions indicate inadequate understanding. When the right viewpoint is discovered, complexity collapses: the argument shortens, the code simplifies, and what seemed accidental becomes inevitable.
The emphasis on elegance also shapes practice. It urges a method: before calculating, improve the concepts; before extending a proof, refine the definitions; before coding, choose a representation that makes correctness immediate. Notation matters because it channels thought. Trim assumptions, find symmetry, isolate the invariant, and the proof or program will nearly write itself. This is not a plea for cleverness but for discipline: elegance is hard-won clarity.
There is an ethical undertone here. Mathematics educates taste for what must be true, and elegance is that taste made visible. When beauty and truth coincide, understanding deepens and knowledge becomes durable. If the result still feels clumsy, the work is not finished.
This stance fits Dijkstra’s larger project. A pioneer of structured programming and program correctness, he treated programming as a mathematical activity in which proofs and programs are two views of the same design. He prized invariants, judicious abstraction, and the ruthless elimination of special cases. Elegance is not an aesthetic extra; it is the evidence that the right abstraction has been found. In software as in pure mathematics, patches, exceptions, and case explosions indicate inadequate understanding. When the right viewpoint is discovered, complexity collapses: the argument shortens, the code simplifies, and what seemed accidental becomes inevitable.
The emphasis on elegance also shapes practice. It urges a method: before calculating, improve the concepts; before extending a proof, refine the definitions; before coding, choose a representation that makes correctness immediate. Notation matters because it channels thought. Trim assumptions, find symmetry, isolate the invariant, and the proof or program will nearly write itself. This is not a plea for cleverness but for discipline: elegance is hard-won clarity.
There is an ethical undertone here. Mathematics educates taste for what must be true, and elegance is that taste made visible. When beauty and truth coincide, understanding deepens and knowledge becomes durable. If the result still feels clumsy, the work is not finished.
Quote Details
| Topic | Reason & Logic |
|---|
More Quotes by Edsger
Add to List
