
Proofs and mathematical structure
Posted:
Jan 28, 1997 3:48 PM


On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, under the heading "Re: parent's messages," Tad Watanabe wrote:
> > I think the fact the writers of the C&E standards avoided the term > 'proof' in the document was a mistake. They were possibly concerned > about the emphasis on the 'form' of proofs often seen in teaching of > twocolumn proofs. I reall don't know. However, as I look through > the 'reasoning' standards for K4, 58, and 912, there seems to be a > reasonable development toward more rigorous proofs. One question
I certainly agree avoiding the term _proof_ was a mistake but still I wonder whether you feel the Standards give short shrift to what is arguable the most basic and vital mathematical structure of all: proof. If so, does this constitute "rejecting mathematical structure"?
You did not comment about the ice cream example in the 912 Standard #3: Mathematics as Reasoning. I wonder if anything a person (or committee) says about "mathematics as reasoning" can be taken seriously after that person (or committee) makes a statement such as this.
Jack

