upvote
I know what you're saying but elegance is not simply an aesthetic concern.

The value of a proof is not only its conclusion but also the insight that it provides through its method.

The goal of mathematics is not to prove as many theorems as possible but rather to gain an ever deeper understanding of why certain statements are true. The way that something is proved can be more or less useful to advancing that goal.

As an example the elementary proof(s) of the prime number theorem are just about as famous as the original proof. Sometimes the second bite of the cherry is even juicier than the first.

reply
Exactly. The reason mathematicians and physicists care about elegance is because they care about understanding things. Elegance, like you said, isn't about aesthetics, even though people seem to think they're synonymous. But the elegance is that you've reduced things to simple components. That not only makes it easier for us humans to understand but it means you're closer to the minimal structure. Meaning you know what matters and more importantly, what doesn't.

Tbh, elegance is something programmers should strive for too. Elegant code is easier to build upon, easier to read/understand, easier to modify, easier to adapt. For all the same reasons mathematicians want elegance. Though it's true for many domains. People love to throw around the term "first principles" but that's not something you (usually) start at, that's something you derive. And it's usually not very easy to figure out

reply
Agreed; e.g. if you prove something about the real numbers, the matter of how R is constructed out of your axiomatic system doesn't matter
reply
The picture isn't quite so clean in the constructive context, which is what many of these proof systems are rooted in, e.g., https://mathoverflow.net/questions/236483/difference-between...
reply
there are questions where the abstraction of real numbers becomes leaky, and some axioms (or their lack) poke through.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice#Real_numbers

reply
Some proofs have become extremely long, and the raw size has created worries about correctness. It's easy to make a mistake in hundreds of pages.

Ultimately, a proof is an argument that something is true. The simpler "more elegant" proof is generally going to be more convincing.

reply
Proof irrelevance I don't think is accepted in constructivist situations. Those are, however, not that relevant to the recent wave of AI math which uses Lean, whose type system includes classical mathematics.
reply