Motivated by Why Is Intuition so Important to Mathematicians but Missing from Mathematics Education? $^{1}$ by Leona Burton, I would like to learn about specific ideas or strategies to attain mathematical intuition, which I exemplify in my Answer below. Many textbooks only present definitions, theorems, and proofs, without any explanation of the intuition or motivation behind a definition or theorem, or the idea of the proof. I illustrate by examples the meaning of "intuition":
● $\{\emptyset\} $ can be intuited as a box containing nothing a box containing an empty box.
● The Fundamenal Theorem of Calculus can be intuited, via a geometric picture, by interpreting the interpretation of $g(x) = \int_a^{x} f(t) \, dt$ as the area under the graph of $f$ and $g(x)$ as the "area so far" function from $a$ to $x$
● The Jacobian Determinant for a transformation can be intuited by approximating the image region of the new variable with a parallelogram determined by secant vectors.
Despite the quote by Henri Poincaré ("It is by logic that we prove, but by intuition that we discover.") on the averred significance of intuition in math, the aforesaid article astounds me:
"None of the mathematicians talked about working on their intuitions
to improve their frequency or reliability…""Intuition, insight or instinct was seen by most of the seventy mathematicians whom I interviewed as a necessary component for developing knowing. Yet none of them
offered any comments on whether, and how, they themselves had had their intuitions nurtured as part of their learning process.""These practising research mathematicians speak with such enthusiasm and joy of their practices. However, with the notable exception of the work of Fischbein, accounts of the deliberate nurturing of intuition and insight is absent from
the mathematics education literature, even from process-based research, and, despite the claim for the centrality of it to mathematical work, it is equally absent from practices
with students…"
Best Answer
TL;DR
My opinion is that "intuitive" is well approximated by "compatible with our internal model of reality" and I try to argue that such treatment might be useful in gaining or teaching intuition, that is, in my words, updating someone's model to match the reality.
Disclaimer 1:
I am not sure what really is the question about and what are the answers the OP wishes for, however, as this topic seems to be of interest of many, I can take a guess. Most of it is probably well known to you, but I suspect the point is to spell it out. I can only hope the opinions provided would be useful to some.
Disclaimer 2:
All the things below are my own opinions based on my (rather small compared to others) experience with intuition in teaching, doing research, discussions, etc. However, it is worth noting, that quite large part of any success I had was due to gaining intuition either by me or people I communicated with. (I wouldn't cite here the testimonials of students I taught, but you are welcome to search through my answers, especially those that contains pictures, e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6. Also, this is not an (failed) attempt at self-promotion.)
Disclaimer 3:
I find the cited article of Leona Burton misleading and not useful, in particular, I don't agree with meanings of intuition cited by her in the context provided by the paper. Although the aforementioned points are correlated with adjective "intuitive", in my opinion the relation is much weaker than implied by the author.
Please understand, that I don't say that intuition is not connected with the above, those points are related, but do not cover what I think we would like "intuition" to describe. (Obviously, meanings of words and sentences are not independent, but, nevertheless, try to think about what would happen if we were to perform some kind of orthogonalization on the meaning of the above).
On intuition:
My most useful approximation of "intuition" is
$$\color{blue}{\text{Intuitive means compatible with our model of reality.}}$$
In other words, things we find counter-intuitive behave differently as we would expect them to behave, i.e. our internal model of reality is not consistent with "experimental results" we observe. This might seem like a truism, but it is still an useful approximation.
There is hardly anything we can do about the reality, so to gain intuition we need to update our internal map (like a chart, not a function). There are many approaches. (In fact, we learn if and only if we change our behavior, if some activity does not change our reality model/map/whatever, then we are not learning).
When everything fails, we can still:
On teaching intuition:
My experience with teaching intuition is that people think differently, have different reality maps/models and successful "intuition transfer" happens when they updated their models enough to be compatible with presented theorems/data/etc. Some useful techniques:
Conclusion:
As I said before, all this techniques are mostly known, and my little experience is not enough to attest it works or not. I also doubt the above lists to be complete. Nevertheless, the OP displayed such an eagerness in this topic that I hope he would still find this post useful.
$$\ddot\smile$$