No description available.

This thesis aspires to establish a new research direction in STS. In the first chapter a literature review is conducted and the research questions are being formulated. The second chapter is devoted to presenting research findings from the archaeological, biological and brain sciences in a unified form. The various stone tool technologies are analysed, and a brief introduction follows into human evolution and the effects that artefacts had on it; then recent neurobiological research on the deeper relationships between consciousness, artefacts and the brain is presented. In the third chapter, after an introduction in the deeper neurological relationships between language and gestures, a gestural analysis of mathematical speech follows, based on visual data generated from an interview with a working mathematician; the last section examines recent research on gesture and mathematics as special cases of Roman Ingarden’s aesthetic theory. In the fourth chapter, four approaches to the social history of mathematics in the USSR are presented, based on data generated from interviews with former professional Soviet mathematicians. Following a Maussian approach, the Soviet mathematical community is presented as a gift economy of scientific articles. Then, in line with a Marxian approach, the Soviet university mathematical school is presented as a factory with its own mode of self-production. In the following section, based on a Parsonian systemic approach, the Soviet mathematical community is presented as a banking system, with the scientific journals as the banking institutions. In the next section of the fourth chapter, following a Weberian approach, the mathematical community in the USSR is presented as a social estate, as separate and distinct from other Soviet social estates. The final section integrates the previous approaches and presents the Soviet mathematics research community as a modern version of an ancient city-state. In the fifth chapter Hilbert spaces are briefly presented, as an example of the fictional universe of modern mathematics, along with some conjectured differences between Soviet and Western mathematics research. In the final chapter, the conclusions of this research project are summarised, and this thesis is presented as an instance of a proposed revised version of David Bloor’s Strong Programme.

It is intended that this paper present an acceptable proof of the existence of a solution for the wave equation.

Η παρούσα εργασία έχει ως θέμα τη μαθηματική απόδειξη και την διαδικασία επίλυσης προβλήματος. Στόχος της είναι αρχικά, να παρουσιάσει το θεωρητικό υπόβαθρο που διέπει αυτά τα δύο θέματα και να κάνει μια σύγκριση ώστε να αναδειχθούν οι διαφορές τους και οι ομοιότητες τους. Στην συνέχεια, γίνεται μια σύντομη παρουσίαση των Αναλυτικών Προγραμμάτων και των διδακτικών εγχειριδίων των Μαθηματικών του Λυκείου για το χρονικό διάστημα από τα τέλη της δεκαετίας του 1980 έως σήμερα έχοντας ως κύριο άξονα, την απόδειξη και την επίλυση προβλήματος. Κατόπιν, με την βοήθεια μιας δραστηριότητας κατάλληλα διαμορφωμένης εξετάζετε ο ρόλος των παραπάνω στους μαθητές και τέλος, γίνετε μια σύντομη ανάλυση της Γραμμικής και Δομικής μορφής της απόδειξης, όπως αυτή είχε προταθεί από τον Uri Leron και μια συγκριτική παρουσίαση των αποδείξεων κάποιων θεωρημάτων του σχολικού βιβλίου της Γεωμετρίας της Α΄ Λυκείου (Αργυρόπουλος Η.) και με τις δύο μορφές. / The objective of this Master Thesis is the presentation of the Mathematical Proof and Problem Solving. Its aim is initially to present the theoretical background behind these two issues and a comparison between the Mathematical Proof and Problem Solving with respect to their similarities and differences takes place. Then a brief presentation of the curriculum programs as well as the school books of mathematics is given. This presentation is about the time period from the late decade of 1980 up to date, mostly concerning the Mathematical Proof and Problem Solving. Moreover, using a suitably formulated activity, the role of the above over the students is studied. Finally, a concise analysis of Linear and Structural style of proof as it suggested by Uri Leron is given. The thesis is completed with the presentation of three theorems along with their proofs (Linear style) as they are stated in the section of "Inequality Relationships" of Geometry school book of A Lyceum class (Αργυρόπουλος Η. 2008), while for each proof its Structural style is also given.

In this research, I set out to elucidate the relationships that might exist between students' conceptual understanding upon which they draw in their proof activity. I explore these relationships using data from individual interviews with three students from a junior-level Modern Algebra course. Each phase of analysis was iterative, consisting of iterative coding drawing on grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, 2000, 2006; Glaser and Strauss, 1967). In the first phase, I analyzed the participants' interview responses to model their conceptual understanding by drawing on the form/function framework (Saxe, et al., 1998). I then analyzed the participants proof activity using Aberdein's (2006a, 2006b) extension of Toulmin's (1969) model of argumentation. Finally, I analyzed across participants' proofs to analyze emerging patterns of relationships between the models of participants' understanding of identity and inverse and the participants' proof activity. These analyses contributed to the development of three emerging constructs: form shifts in service of sense-making, re-claiming, and lemma generation. These three constructs provide insight into how conceptual understanding relates to proof activity. / Ph. D.

Mathematical proof is an important topic in mathematics education research. Many researchers have addressed various aspects of proof. One aspect that has not been addressed is what common traits are shared by those who are successful at creating proof. This research investigates the common traits in the thought processes of undergraduate students who are considered successful by their professors at creating mathematical proof. A successful proof is defined as a proof that successfully accomplishes at least one of DeVilliers (2003) six roles of proof and demonstrates adequate mathematical content, knowledge, deduction and logical reasoning abilities. This will typically be present in a proof that fits Weber's (2004) semantic proof category, though some syntactic proofs may also qualify. Proof creation can be considered a type of problem, and Schoenfeld's (1985) categories of resources, heuristics, control and ability are used as a framework for reporting the results. The research involved a) finding volunteers based on professorial recommendations; b) administering a proof questionnaire and conducting a video recorded interview about the results; and then c) holding a second video recorded interview where new proofs were introduced to the subjects during the interviews. The researcher used Goldin's (2000) recommendations for making task based research scientific and made interview protocols in the style of Galbraith (1981). The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using Strauss and Corbin's (1990) methods. The resulting codes corresponded with Schoenfeld's four categories, so his category names were used. Resources involved the mathematical content knowledge available to the subject. Heuristics involved strategies and techniques used by the subject in creating the proof. Control involved choices in implementing resources and heuristics, planning and using time wisely. Beliefs involved the subjects' beliefs about mathematics, proof, and their own skills. These categories are seen in other research involving proof but not all put together. The research has implications for further research possibilities in how the categories all work together and develop in successful proof creators. It also has implications for what should be taught in proofs courses to help students become successful provers.

No description available.

As computers become a more prevalent commodity in mathematical research and mathematical proof, the question of whether or not a computer assisted proof can be considered a mathematical proof has become an ongoing topic of discussion in the mathematics community. The use of the computer in mathematical research leads to several implications about mathematics in the present day including the notion that mathematical proof can be based on empirical evidence, and that some mathematical conclusions can be achieved a posteriori instead of a priori, as most mathematicians have done before. While some mathematicians are open to the idea of a computer-assisted proof, others are skeptical and would feel more comfortable if presented with a more traditional proof, as it is more surveyable. A surveyable proof enables mathematicians to see the validity of a proof, which is paramount for mathematical growth, and offer critique. In my thesis, I will present the role that the mathematical proof plays within the mathematical community, and thereby conclude that because of the dynamics of the mathematical community and the constant activity of proving, the risks that are associated with a mistake that stems from a computer-assisted proof can be caught by the scrupulous activity of peer review in the mathematics community. Eventually, as the following generations of mathematicians become more trained in using computers and in computer programming, they will be able to better use computers in producing evidence, and in turn, other mathematicians will be able to both understand and trust the resultant proof. Therefore, it remains that whether or not a proof was achieved by a priori or a posteriori, the validity of a proof will be determined by the correct logic behind it, as well as its ability to convince the members of the mathematical community—not on whether the result was reached a priori with a traditional proof, or a posteriori with a computer-assisted proof.

L'apprentissage des preuves mathématiques déductives est fondamental dans l'enseignement des mathématiques. Pourtant, la dernière enquête TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) menée par l'IEA ("International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement") en mars 2015, le niveau général des étudiants en mathématiques est en baisse et les étudiants éprouvent de plus en plus de difficultés pour comprendre et écrire les preuves mathématiques déductives.Pour aborder ce problème, plusieurs travaux en didactique des mathématiques utilisent l’apprentissage collaboratif en classe.L'apprentissage collaboratif consiste à regrouper des étudiants pour travailler ensemble dans le but d'atteindre un objectif commun. Il repose sur le débat et l'argumentation. Les étudiants s'engagent dans des discussions pour exprimer leurs points de vue sous forme d'arguments et de contre-arguments dans le but de résoudre un problème posé.L’argumentation utilisée dans ces approches est basée sur des discussions informelles qui permettent aux étudiants d'exprimer publiquement leurs déclarations et de les justifier pour construire des preuves déductives. Ces travaux ont montré que l’argumentation est une méthode efficace pour l’apprentissage des preuves mathématiques : (i) elle améliore la pensée critique et les compétences métacognitives telles que l'auto-surveillance et l'auto-évaluation (ii) augmente la motivation des étudiants par les interactions sociales et (iii) favorise l'apprentissage entre les étudiants. Du point de vuedes enseignants, certaines difficultés surgissent avec ces approches pour l'évaluation des preuves déductives. En particulier, l'évaluation des résultats, qui comprend non seulement la preuve finale mais aussi les étapes intermédiaires, les discussions, les conflits qui peuvent exister entre les étudiants durant le débat. En effet, cette évaluation introduit une charge de travail importante pour les enseignants.Dans cette thèse, nous proposons un système pour la construction et l'évaluation des preuves mathématiques déductives. Ce système a un double objectif : (i) permettre aux étudiants de construire des preuves mathématiques déductives à partir un débat argumentatif structuré (ii) aider les enseignants à évaluer ces preuves et toutes les étapes intermédiaires afin d'identifier les erreurs et les lacunes et de fournir un retour constructif aux étudiants.Le système offre aux étudiants un cadre structuré pour débattre durant la construction de la preuve en utilisant les cadres d'argumentation proposés en intelligente artificielle. Ces cadres d’argumentation sont utilisés aussi dans l’analyse du débat qui servira pour représenter le résultat sous différentes formes afin de faciliter l’évaluation aux enseignants. Dans un second temps, nous avons implanté et validé le système par une étude expérimentale pour évaluer son acceptabilité dans la construction collaborative des preuves déductives par les étudiants et dans l’évaluation de ces preuves par les enseignants. / Learning deductive proofs is fundamental for mathematics education. Yet, many students have difficulties to understand and write deductive mathematical proofs which has severe consequences for problem solving as highlighted by several studies. According to the recent study of TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study), the level of students in mathematics is falling. students have difficulties to understand mathematics and more precisely to build and structure mathematical proofs.To tackle this problem, several approaches in mathematical didactics have used a social approach in classrooms where students are engaged in a debate and use argumentation in order to build proofs.The term "argumentation" in this context refers to the use of informal discussions in classrooms to allow students to publicly express claims and justify them to build proofs for a given problem. The underlying hypotheses are that argumentation: (i) enhances critical thinking and meta-cognitive skills such as self monitoring and self assessment; (ii) increases student's motivation by social interactions; and (iii) allows learning among students. From instructors' point of view, some difficulties arise with these approaches for assessment. In fact, the evaluation of outcomes -- that includes not only the final proof but also all intermediary steps and aborted attempts -- introduces an important work overhead.In this thesis, we propose a system for constructing and evaluating deductive mathematical proofs. The system has a twofold objective: (i) allow students to build deductive mathematical proofs using structured argumentative debate; (ii) help the instructors to evaluate these proofs and assess all intermediary steps in order to identify misconceptions and provide a constructive feedback to students. The system provides students with a structured framework to debate during construction of proofs using the proposed argumentation frameworks in artificial intelligence. These argumentation frameworks are also used in the analysis of the debate which will be used to represent the result in different forms in order to facilitate the evaluation to the instructors. The system has been implemented and evaluated experimentally by students in the construction of deductive proofs and instructors in the evaluation of these proofs.

Submitted by Jean Medeiros (jeanletras@uepb.edu.br) on 2016-05-12T14:04:15Z No. of bitstreams: 1 PDF - Marcella Luanna da Silva Lima.pdf: 5051111 bytes, checksum: 2d6c0143b6e358e6f301609c3154d1f0 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Secta BC (secta.csu.bc@uepb.edu.br) on 2016-07-21T20:47:00Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 PDF - Marcella Luanna da Silva Lima.pdf: 5051111 bytes, checksum: 2d6c0143b6e358e6f301609c3154d1f0 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Secta BC (secta.csu.bc@uepb.edu.br) on 2016-07-21T20:47:11Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 PDF - Marcella Luanna da Silva Lima.pdf: 5051111 bytes, checksum: 2d6c0143b6e358e6f301609c3154d1f0 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-07-21T20:47:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 PDF - Marcella Luanna da Silva Lima.pdf: 5051111 bytes, checksum: 2d6c0143b6e358e6f301609c3154d1f0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-12-21 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES / Our research work aimed to investigate what type of proof, mathematical demonstration and level of geometrical thinking can occur from a didactic proposal within pencil, paper and GeoGebra environments. As qualitative research and study case, we used as instruments essays with Mathematical Proof and Demonstration themes, a didactic proposal developed by a team of five people who inserted worked collaboratively in the CAPES/OBEDUC/UFMS/UEPB/UFAL Project, field notes, participant observation, audios and photos. We elaborated a didactic proposal with eighteen activities, divided into four parts, which encouraged the students to reflect, justify, prove and demonstrate. The proposal application was carried out in July 2015 with High School 2nd year students of a public school in the town of Areia, Paraíba. For such, the students organized themselves in couples and one trio and the data collection happened in three moments. In the first moment we applied the essay, revised angles, triangles and theorems with the students and worked GeoGebra application with them. In the second moment we applied Parts I and II of the proposal with eight activities on Pythagoras Theorem and three activities on Sum of the Internal Angles of a Triangle Theorem, respectively. In the third moment we applied Part III, with two questions on External Angle Theorem and Part IV, with five question to be worked with the GeoGebra application on Pythagoras Theorem and Sum of the Internal Angles of a Triangle Theorem. In our research work we analyzed the work developed by the trio of students, once they were great in responding all the questions/activities. We analyzed Activity 8 of Part I, Activity 1 and 2 of Part II and all Activities of Part IV, totalizing in eight questions. We used the triangulation method for our study case and, firstly, we traced the profiles of the trio in relation to Mathematical Proof and Demonstration. Then we investigated the geometric thinking and the mathematical proof and demonstration used by the trio of students in the pencil and paper and GeoGebra environments. For such, we used discussions around the level of geometrical thinking proposed by Parzysz (2006) and the type of proofs proposed by Balacheff (2000) and Nasser and Tinoco (2003). From our research results we could conclude that the trio of students could not develop the justifications or proofs, once they did not understand what are mathematical proof and demonstration are, in their essays they understand mathematical proofs as bimestrial evaluations applied by the mathematics teacher. Moreover, the mathematical proofs performed by these students were in accordance with naive empiricism, pragmatic proof (Balacheff, 2000) and graphic justification (Nassar and Tinoco, 2003). In this way, when we observed the students geometrical thinking (Parzysz, 2006) we noted that it fits into two levels of the non-axiomatic Geometry: the Concrete Geomety (G0) and the Spatio-Graphique Geometry (G1), once these students used drawings to justify their affirmations, as the validation of the affirmation was done by the trio. We believe that if in Mathematic classes the teachers contemplate mathematical proof and demonstration, respecting the level of education, the degree of knowledge and maturity of the students, they could strongly contribute to the process of teaching and learning Mathematics and geometrical thinking, once the students would be led to reflect, justify, prove and demonstrate their ideas. / Nossa pesquisa investigou que tipo de provas, demonstrações matemáticas e nível de pensamento geométrico de alunos do 2º Ano do Ensino Médio podem ocorrer a partir de uma proposta didática nos ambientes lápis e papel e GeoGebra. Como pesquisa qualitativa, e estudo de caso, utilizamos como instrumentos redação com o tema Provas e Demonstrações Matemáticas, proposta didática desenvolvida por uma equipe de cinco pessoas que trabalhou de forma colaborativa inserida no Projeto CAPES/OBEDUC/UFMS/UEPB/UFAL Edital 2012, notas de campo, observação participante, gravações em áudio e fotos. Elaboramos uma proposta didática com 18 atividades, dividida em quatro partes, que incentivam alunos a refletirem, justificarem, provarem e demonstrarem. A aplicação dessa proposta se deu em julho de 2015 aos alunos do 2º Ano do Ensino Médio de uma escola pública na cidade de Areia, Paraíba. Para isso, os alunos se agruparam em duplas e um trio e a coleta dos dados se deu em três momentos. No primeiro momento, aplicamos a redação, revisamos com os alunos ângulos, triângulos e teoremas e trabalhamos com eles o aplicativo GeoGebra. No segundo momento, aplicamos as Partes I e II da proposta com 8 atividades sobre Teorema de Pitágoras e 3 atividades sobre Teorema da Soma dos Ângulos Internos de um Triângulo, respectivamente. No terceiro momento, aplicamos a Parte III, com 2 questões sobre o Teorema do Ângulo Externo e a Parte IV, com 5 questões à serem trabalhadas no aplicativo GeoGebra sobre o Teorema de Pitágoras e Teorema da Soma dos Ângulos Internos de um Triângulo. Em nossa pesquisa analisamos o trabalho desenvolvido pelo trio de alunos, uma vez que foram ricos na tentativa de r esponder a todas as perguntas/atividades. Analisamos a Atividade 8 da Parte I, as Atividades 1 e 2 da Parte II e todas as Atividades da Parte IV, totalizando em 8 questões. Utilizamos o método de triangulação de dados para nosso estudo de caso e, primeiramente, traçamos o perfil do trio de alunos com relação às Provas e Demonstrações Matemáticas. Em seguida, investigamos o pensamento geométrico e as provas e demonstrações matemáticas utilizadas pelo trio de alunos nos ambientes lápis e papel e GeoGebra. Para isso, utilizamos as discussões sobre os níveis do pensamento geométrico propostos por Parzysz (2006) e tipos de provas propostos por Balacheff (2000) e Nasser e Tinoco (2003). A partir de nossos resultados pudemos concluir que o trio de alunos não conseguiu desenvolver suas justificativas nem provas, uma vez que não entendem o que vem a ser provas e demonstrações matemáticas, e em suas redações percebemos que estes alunos tratam provas matemáticas como as avaliações aplicadas bimestralmente pelo professor de Matemática. Além disso, as provas matemáticas realizadas por estes alunos se enquadram no empirismo ingênuo, prova pragmática (Balacheff, 2000) e justificativa gráfica (Nasser e Tinoco, 2003). Dessa forma, quando observamos o pensamento geométrico (Parzysz, 2006) destes alunos, notamos que se enquadra nos dois níveis da Geometria não axiomática: a Geometria Concreta (G0) e a Geometria Spatio-Graphique (G1), uma vez que estes alunos se utilizam de desenhos para justificar suas afirmações, como também a validação das afirmações foi feita pela percepção do trio. Acreditamos que se nas aulas de Matemática os professores contemplassem provas e demonstrações matemáticas, respeitando o nível de escolaridade, o grau de conhecimento e a maturidade dos alunos, contribuiriam fortemente para o processo de ensino e aprendizagem da Matemática e do pensamento geométrico, uma vez que os alunos seriam levados a refletir, justificar, provar e demonstrar suas ideias.