Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Topic: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Replies: 49   Last Post: Jan 13, 2012 2:37 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Wayne Bishop

Posts: 4,975
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Posted: Dec 23, 2011 7:09 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

At 10:12 PM 12/22/2011, Dan Christensen wrote:

>The axioms for geometry and real numbers are not
>built into the DC Proof system. The numbers of
>axioms alone would overwhelm the beginner. For
>the axioms of geometry, see the work of Tarski
>or Hilbert. You can find a version of the axioms
>for the real numbers in the DC Proof/Samples directory.
>
>Beware, though. In my experience, even
>elementary results in the Euclidean plane can
>quickly explode into proofs of several hundred,
>even thousands of lines. So, I really can't
>recommend geometry for the beginner just
>learning how to write mathematical proofs.
>Better to stick to logic, set theory, and
>elementary number theory, the axioms of which
>ARE built into DC Proof. (See "To the Educator" at my homepage.)


All true but I come to exactly the opposite
conclusion about beginners just learning how to
write mathematical proofs. I continue to believe
(as with far better mathematicians than either of
us over the last couple millennia) that Euclidean
plane geometry remains a wonderful place to
introduce mathematical proof to
beginners. Moreover, I am absolutely convinced
that much of the reason that US students pursuing
degrees in mathematics have so much difficulty
with mathematical proof is the loss of a good (in
spite of its logical problems) introduction to
proof in the context of the traditional high
school (usually sophomore) course in Euclidean
plane geometry. So-called "modern" introductions
to geometry that have replaced it are so awful as
to be useless if not outright
counterproductive. I have been teaching our
upper division university course entitled "Modern
Geometry" for the past 40 years and the
performance has gotten steadily worse over the
decades. With very few exceptions, students who
have had their precollege education abroad -
Mideast, Far East, Russia, Ethiopia, etc. - are
the best students of the class and that did not
used to be the situation, say, back in the 70s
when we had lots of students from Iran. A nice
example was my first student assistant after I
was left quadriplegic and in need of competent
classroom assistance. She was from Lebanon, a
beginning high school mathematics teacher there
who had lost all of her school records when she
left Lebanon at the height of the conflict there
years before. With her children now in middle
school, she decided to return to the university
and do whatever she needed to get US credit for a
bachelor's degree in mathematics. At the time, I
had not yet figured out how I could write so she
needed to score my neighbors as well as write
stuff on the board that I had not been able to
anticipate and use Geometer's Sketchpad or
Cinderella (wonderful for examples in the
Poincaré disk model for hyperbolic geometry).

I have always felt the need to start the course
with a quick review of stuff learned in the
traditional high school course but over the years
it has become less and less "review" than initial
introduction and, although they have earned a C
or better in a course entitled "Math Notation and
Proof", they have little idea of what
mathematical proof is really all about. On the
first quiz, she came back from scoring absolutely
amazed, better said, appalled at some students
inability to even regurgitate easy stuff that was
both in the printed material I had distributed
and discussed in class. Her assessment, "We learned that stuff in 7th grade!".

Beginning as you propose strikes me as being
perceived by most students as an exercise in
abstract nonsense, not in providing some level of
understanding of the solid foundation for
mathematics that proof provides. Beyond that,
except for mathematical logic itself, no
professional mathematician appeals to axiomatic
set theory or formalistic logic in their thinking
nor in their publications. More than a few have
no idea what you're even talking about once you
get beyond, say, discussions about the Axiom of Choice.

Wayne


Date Subject Author
12/11/11
Read Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
kirby urner
12/12/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Dan Christensen
12/12/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
kirby urner
12/12/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Dan Christensen
12/13/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
kirby urner
12/13/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Dan Christensen
12/13/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
kirby urner
12/13/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Dan Christensen
12/13/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
kirby urner
12/13/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Joe Niederberger
12/13/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Dan Christensen
12/13/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
kirby urner
12/13/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Dan Christensen
12/15/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Joe Niederberger
12/15/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
kirby urner
12/15/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Joe Niederberger
12/15/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
kirby urner
12/15/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Joe Niederberger
12/15/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
kirby urner
12/15/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Joe Niederberger
12/15/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
kirby urner
12/15/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Joe Niederberger
12/15/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
kirby urner
12/16/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Joe Niederberger
12/16/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
kirby urner
12/16/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Dan Christensen
12/16/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Joe Niederberger
12/17/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Joe Niederberger
12/17/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
kirby urner
12/17/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Dan Christensen
12/18/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Wayne Bishop
12/18/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Joe Niederberger
12/18/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
kirby urner
12/23/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Dan Christensen
12/23/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Wayne Bishop
12/24/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Louis Talman
12/23/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Joe Niederberger
12/23/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
kirby urner
12/23/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Wayne Bishop
12/24/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Joe Niederberger
12/24/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Wayne Bishop
12/24/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Joe Niederberger
12/24/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
kirby urner
12/24/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Joe Niederberger
12/24/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Wayne Bishop
12/24/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Dan Christensen
12/25/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Dan Christensen
12/25/11
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Dan Christensen
1/13/12
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
Joe Niederberger
1/13/12
Read Re: Brainstorming about STEM (was About Functions)
kirby urner

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.