Mathematical Illustration: Proof, Intuition and AI
Abstract
In the French pedagogic tradition of Gaspard Monge, geometry was learned by drawing and handling models: drawing was knowing. The formalism of the early twentieth century placed illustration on the side of intuition, perhaps useful for discovery but kept apart from proof. Yet illustration stayed active in mathematics and provides a model for mathematical knowledge as proofs can be generated by automated systems and the Leiden Declaration asks again what mathematical knowledge is. We trace a persistent tradition of illustration through Hadamard, Coxeter, Conway, Thurston and the Geometry Center, and draw on the philosophy of mathematical practice, including Manders' distinction between exact and coexact claims, De Toffoli's account of diagrams with justificatory force, and Giardino's representational affordances. Using examples from Schwartz's minimal flat torus, early images of the Mandelbrot set, and shader renderings of algebraic starscapes, we argue for the development of rigorous illustration, to help inspire and certify the insights it affords. We close by asking the mathematical community to recognise the role illustration plays in helping develop mathematical research and understanding.
Related
- Fully Coupled Nonlinear Mean-Field FBSΔEs: Solvability and an LQ Buffer-Adjustment Illustration
- The Birthday Problem and the Birthday Person Problem: Intuition, Probability and Cryptographic Applications
- A cutoff-independent enstrophy bound for the sigma = 3 dispersive dyadic shell model: kernel-checked conservation of the second invariant along solutions, CVODE controls, and an illustration on The Well data
- Mathematical folklore
- Digital Learning Platforms and Mathematical Problem-Solving Ability: The Moderating Role of Self-Regulated Learning
BibTeX
@misc{harriss2026mathematical,
title = {{Mathematical Illustration: Proof, Intuition and AI}},
author = {Edmund Harriss and Katherine Stange},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2610.02655},
eprint = {2610.02655},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02655},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Mathematical Illustration: Proof, Intuition and AI
AU - Edmund Harriss
AU - Katherine Stange
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/02
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2610.02655
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.02655
AB - In the French pedagogic tradition of Gaspard Monge, geometry was learned by drawing and handling models: drawing was knowing. The formalism of the early twentieth century placed illustration on the side of intuition, perhaps useful for discovery but kept apart from proof. Yet illustration stayed active in mathematics and provides a model for mathematical knowledge as proofs can be generated by automated systems and the Leiden Declaration asks again what mathematical knowledge is. We trace a persistent tradition of illustration through Hadamard, Coxeter, Conway, Thurston and the Geometry Center, and draw on the philosophy of mathematical practice, including Manders' distinction between exact and coexact claims, De Toffoli's account of diagrams with justificatory force, and Giardino's representational affordances. Using examples from Schwartz's minimal flat torus, early images of the Mandelbrot set, and shader renderings of algebraic starscapes, we argue for the development of rigorous illustration, to help inspire and certify the insights it affords. We close by asking the mathematical community to recognise the role illustration plays in helping develop mathematical research and understanding.
ER -