Miller 1

Tess Miller April 12, 2012 ENGL 2604 Proof P3 Is that a Fact?: Pun on Proof Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law. The United States Constitution gives each citizen this right, but what exactly defines proof? Lawyers present evidence in court and then a jury decides on whether to prove the defendant innocent or guilty. So is the defendant proven guilty or do a group of citizens decide what they believe based on the evidence presented? David Auburn discusses this issue in his play, Proof. The title, while short and simple, carries great meaning for the play. Through this pun Auburn discusses both mathematical and real-life proofs in the play while different characters attempt to prove mathematics as well as issues in life. In Proof, Auburn argues that ultimately proof is not as concrete as one might think because personal trust always plays a role. The first and more direct meaning of proof refers to a mathematical proof. The main conflict of the story surrounds Catherines proof involving prime numbers. Mathematical problems each require a solution, an answer. This may begin as a theory, but it ultimately must be proven. A mathematician creates this proof through a logical process using reasoning. Catherine describes her fathers mathematics to Hal saying beautiful mathematics. Answers to everything. The most elegant proofs, perfect proofs, proofs like music (Auburn 17). The way that she describes his proofs make them seem rhythmic and artistic. The parallel structure of elegant proofs, perfect proofs emphasizes the reversed description proofs like music. Comparing math and music seems somewhat of a paradox, but it shows the rhythm and perfection of his mathematics. Music also registers through sound. Later in the play Robert tells

Miller 2

Catherine to read him the proof aloud. In this way the mathematics become auditory just like music. Despite the elegance of Roberts proofs, mathematics is still a process. A mathematician must follow certain steps to reach a conclusion or to find an answer. Catherine explains to Hal that math is not about big ideas. Its work. Youve got to chip away at a problem (Auburn 32). In order to find an answer one must work through the problem. She continues to explain that her father, Robert, a brilliant mathematician would attack a question from the side, from some weird angle, sneak up on it, grind away at it (Auburn 32). Despite the elegance of the outcomes of Roberts proofs he still had to work through problems and grind away at it. Catherine quotes a letter that says a taste for the mysteries of numbers is excessively rare (Auburn 31). Both Catherine and her father share this unique trait. They both have a taste for the mysteries of numbers and strive to find solutions to the mysteries. Even while Robert suffers mentally, he continues to write mathematical proofs. In Act 2, Scene 4 Catherine returns home from school to see her father. He explains that his machinery is working (Auburn 60) again, in other words his mind. After not knowing if he was sane or insane he thinks that he has recovered but in reality he has begun to deteriorate. He makes Catherine read the proof he has written and she says: Let X equal the quantities of all quantities of X. Let X equal the cold. It is cold in December. The months of cold equal November through February. There are four months of cold and four of heat, leaving four of indeterminate temperature. In February it snows. In March the Lake is a lake of ice. In September the students come back and the bookstores are full. Let X equal the month of full bookstore. The number of books approaches infinity as the number of months of cold approaches four. I will never be as cold now as I will in the future. The future

Miller 3

of cold is infinite. The future of heat is the future of cold. The book stores are infinite and so are never full except in September (Auburn 63). In Roberts mind, this proof follows the same logical conclusion that all of his other mathematical proofs do. However, to other mathematicians this seems like nonsense. While one may not be able to follow his reasoning, it still classifies as a proof because it follows similar steps. Mathematicians would discredit this proof by discrediting Robert due to his mental state but that involves the matter of individual choice. Since each person chooses what to accept as truth both in math and in life. In contrast to this proof, Hal discovers a revolutionary proof in the math world in one of Roberts notebooks that Catherine claims to have written. Hal explains Its a result. A proof. I mean it looks like a proof. I mean it is a proof, a very long proof, I havent read it of course, or checked it, I dont even know if I could check it, but if it is a proof of what I think its a proof of, its a very important proof (Auburn 71). Hals redundancy reflects his initial shock in what he finds in the notebook. He says that he doesnt even know if [he] could check it. Before one accepts a proof in mathematics, one must check it, especially in the case of something as important as the one in this notebook. In this way one must prove a proof. Therefore, when is something actually proven? Claire then asks Hal what it proves and he responds It looks like it proves a theorem a mathematical theorem about prime numbers, something mathematicians have been trying to prove since since there were mathematicians, basically. Most people thought it couldnt be done (Auburn 40). This final statement shows that no one had faith in this theory, but Catherine did. Her faith and determination to work away at the problem allowed her to prove the theory. However, this also makes Hal and Claire more skeptical of the proof because they did not believe that it could be done.

Miller 4

Ultimately, Hal believes Catherine and the way that she explains her mathematical proof reflects life as well. Later, Catherine talks to Hal about her proof and says I know it works But all I can see are the compromises, the approximations, place where its stitched together. Its lumpy. Dads stuff was more elegant (Auburn 71). In this way, Catherines proof reflects life as well as mathematics. In life, no one typically solves problems elegantly. In life one sees the compromises and approximations and evidence must be stitched together. Secondly, the other meaning of Proof reflects life rather than mathematics. In life proof requires evidence and even then in order to be taken as truth each individual comes to a conclusion. Auburn asserts that, in life proof is not concrete because faith and trust always plays a role. In the play, Catherine tries to prove that she wrote the proof, but she also tries to prove her mental stability. Hal says to her Im just saying theres no proof that you wrote this and to this she replies Of course theres not (Auburn 53). This shows that Catherine understands that there never will be concrete proof that she wrote the proof because no matter how much evidence, personal trust plays a role in an individual choice. Rather for one to accept something as truth they must look at the evidence and come to their own conclusion. In the end, beyond concrete evidence, trust and faith are the deciding factors in the process of proof. When Catherine confesses that she wrote the proof Hal does not believe her. She says to him I wanted you to be the first to see it. I didnt know I wanted that until last night. It ME. I trusted you (Auburn 54). Based on her lack of formal education and experience, Hal wonders if Catherine truly did write the proof or if the work belongs to Robert. He broke the trust she had for him because he did not trust her. This theme of trust and faith plays a crucial role in the play and in the process of proving something.

Miller 5

Also, Auburn explains through this play that evidence and proof differ greatly. Many times these two can be seen interchangeably but the two contrast strongly. No matter how much evidence exists, each individual comes to his/her own conclusion about the truth based on the evidence and their belief. After Hal re-evaluates the evidence, combined with his trust for Catherine he decides that she did write the proof. In anger Catherine says Its just evidence. It doesnt finish the job. It doesnt prove anything to which Hal asks, Okay, what would? And Catherine answers NOTHING (Auburn 69). The capitalization of Catherines statement adds emphasis that nothing can prove that she wrote the proof. This emphasis shows the parallel between what Catherine says and what Auburn says through the play. Auburn argues that proof is not as ultimate as one might think because there is room for interpretation through faith and trust. While trying to prove that she wrote the proof, Catherine also tries to prove that she does not suffer from mental illness like her father. She does not only try to prove it to others but she tries to prove it to herself as well. When Claire consistently shows her concern for Catherine she says Im PERFECTLY OKAY (Auburn 27). Numerous times, she replies that she is okay, but she directs her heightened emotion not just at her sister but also at herself because she tries to convince both Claire and herself of this statement. The capitalization implies that she probably raises her voice in anger and frustration, but also in reassurance. She wants to reassure herself of her statement towards her sister. When Robert tells her crazy people dont sit around wondering if theyre nuts (Auburn 10, 11) she reasons her way and argues with him to discredit this statement. In the end, Claire seems to still believe that her sister lacks full mental capacity whereas, Hal seems to trust her. However, Catherine herself never comes to a conclusion about her dilemma.

Miller 6

Auburn leaves the question of Catherines mental state, along with the issue of whether or not she wrote the proof, left unresolved. In this way Auburn presents the reader with the evidence but the reader, just like each character, must come to his/her own conclusion about what to accept and reject as truth. Similarly, in both math and in life, despite the evidence presented ultimately the individuals choice proves or disproves a statement. One may reject the evidence if he/shes trust belongs to the opposing argument, no matter how much evidence. Since proof is still subjective based on individual trust and faith, is there any form of universal truth?

Works Cited Auburn, David. Proof. New York: Dramatists Play Service, 2001. Print.