> > > On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Andre TOOM wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, Tad Watanabe wrote: > > > > > ... > > My problem is that they use fruits of mathematics and reject mathematics. > > Mathematics has a certain structure: there are assumptions, definitions, > > deduction, theorems, formulas, examples, problems. All this is rejected > > in the "standards". Instead there are some cumbersome and unispiring > > `activities' without any interesting ideas or fruitful results. > > > > I don't see the standards rejecting mathematical structures. Again, this > may be your interpretation of the document (which, I guess, was poorly > articulated). Also, the notions such as "inspiring" and "interesting"
Tad, I am not sure of just what might be included as "mathematical structure" but surely the idea of proof is central. There is a simple way to make a rough determination of what the Standards say, or fail to say, about proof. You and others might like to go to http://www.enc.org/online/nctm/280dtoc1.html and use the search feature to find occurrences of the word _proof_ and variations in the various sections. In order get some idea of the competence of the Standard's authors, editors, etc. in the matter of proofs, a second thing you might want to do is to read the example of the ice cream store recorded under 9-12, Standard #3: Mathematics as Reasoning. Jack