In addition to linear perspective, complex numbers and probability were notable discoveries of the Renaissance. While the power of perspective, which transformed Renaissance art, was quickly recognized, the scientific establishment treated both complex numbers and probability with much suspicion. It was only in the twentieth century that quantum theory showed how probability might be molded from complex numbers and defined the notion of "complex probability amplitude". From a theoretical point of view, however, the space opened to painting by linear perspective and that opened to science by complex numbers share significant characteristics. The Art of Science explores this shared field with the purpose of extending Leonardo's vision of painting to issues of mathematics and encouraging the reader to see science as an art. The intention is to restore a visual dimension to mathematical sciences - an element dulled, if not obscured, by historians, philosophers, and scientists themselves.

In addition to linear perspective, complex numbers and probability were notable discoveries of the Renaissance. While the power of perspective, which transformed Renaissance art, was quickly recognized, the scientific establishment treated both complex numbers and probability with much suspicion. It was only in the twentieth century that quantum theory showed how probability might be molded from complex numbers and defined the notion of "complex probability amplitude". From a theoretical point of view, however, the space opened to painting by linear perspective and that opened to science by complex numbers share significant characteristics. The Art of Science explores this shared field with the purpose of extending Leonardo's vision of painting to issues of mathematics and encouraging the reader to see science as an art. The intention is to restore a visual dimension to mathematical sciences - an element dulled, if not obscured, by historians, philosophers, and scientists themselves.

This volume is located in a cross-disciplinary ?eld bringing together mat- matics, logic, natural science and philosophy. Re?ection on the e?ectiveness of proof brings out a number of questions that have always been latent in the informal understanding of the subject. What makes a symbolic constr- tion signi?cant? What makes an assumption reasonable? What makes a proof reliable? G] odel, Church and Turing, in di?erent ways, achieve a deep und- standing of the notion of e?ective calculability involved in the nature of proof. Turing's work in particular provides a "precise and unquestionably adequate" de?nition of the general notion of a formal system in terms of a machine with a ?nite number of parts. On the other hand, Eugene Wigner refers to the - reasonable e?ectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences as a miracle. Where should the boundary be traced between mathematical procedures and physical processes? What is the characteristic use of a proof as a com- tation, as opposed to its use as an experiment? What does natural science tell us about the e?ectiveness of proof? What is the role of mathematical proofs in the discovery and validation of empirical theories? The papers collected in this book are intended to search for some answers, to discuss conceptual and logical issues underlying such questions and, perhaps, to call attention to other relevant questions."