Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
N. Bourbaki (1950)
The Architecture of MathematicsAmerican Mathematical Monthly, 57
K. Hirst, A. Hirst (1988)
Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Mathematical Education
(1988)
The role of proof in students' understanding of geometry
G. Hanna (1983)
Rigorous proof in mathematics education
Nitsa Movshovitz-Hadar (1988)
Stimulating Presentation of Theorems Followed by Responsive Proofs.for the learning of mathematics, 8
Thomas Tymoczko (1986)
Making room for mathematicians in the philosophy of mathematicsThe Mathematical Intelligencer, 8
U. Leron (1983)
Structuring Mathematical Proofs.American Mathematical Monthly, 90
(1988)
Warm ist ein Beweis ein Beweis ? Unpublished paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Mathematics Teachers , Germany .
James Fetzer (1988)
Program verification: the very ideaCommun. ACM, 31
Daniel Alibert (1988)
Towards New Customs in the Classroom.for the learning of mathematics, 8
D. Elmore (1976)
Mathematical explanationNature, 261
N. Bourbaki (1971)
Great currents of mathematical thought (Vol. 1)
Interchange, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Spring, 1990), 6-13 Gila Hanna The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education In discussing the role of proof in mathematics education it seems helpful to distinguish among different perceptions of proof. It is particularly useful, I believe, to consider the following three aspects, around whichi will organize my comments. 1. Formal proof: proof as a theoretical concept in formal logic (or metalogic), which may be thought of as the ideal which actual mathematical practice only approximates. 2. Acceptable proof: proof as a normative concept that defines what is acceptable to qualified mathematicians. 3. The teaching of proof: proof as an activity in mathematics education which serves to elucidate ideas worth conveying to the student. Formal Proof A formal proof of a given sentence is a finite sequence of sentences such that the first sentence is an axiom, each of the following sentences is either an axiom or has been de- rived from preceding sentences by applying rules of inference, and the last sentence is the one to be proved. Such a proof is, in principle, mechanizable, and eliminates the psychological aspects of proof. The formal approach to proof was developed, in fact, to eliminate
Interchange – Springer Journals
Published: May 16, 2005
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.