Mathematical Proof

Time travel was explodes everywhere universe starts. We are all travelling in time. It was always a mystery that can we travel in past and future from present. My theory and mathematical proof will remove the curtain from everyone`s eyes. Now, it is to travel back and travel forward in time to understand the technologies and basic of time travel. Everyone thinks that any particle could not travel fast the speed of light. My theory and proof will explain that particle can travel more than speed of light. It will explain how past, present and future are running and what are the impact of them on each other.

En el presente documento realizamos una recopilación bibliográfica de las principales investigaciones acerca de la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de la demostración, con el ánimo de aportar fuentes de consulta a la comunidad de educadores en matemáticas interesados en el tema. Planteamos una estructura organizativa que incluye las siguientes líneas de investigación: Consideraciones histórico-epistemológicas, La demostración en el currículo, Concepciones y dificultades de los estudiantes al demostrar, Relaciones entre argumentación y demostración y Propuestas didácticas para la enseñanza de la demostración. In this paper we present a synthesis of main research publications on the teaching and learning of proof. Our aim is to provide a reference to the mathematics educators interested in this topic. The paper is organized based on the following research topics: Historic-epistemological issues, Proof in curriculum, Students’ conceptions and difficulties, Relationship among argumentation an...

El objetivo de este estudio es caracterizar el conocimiento de profesores de matemáticas en formación inicial en la Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica sobre aspectos lógico-sintácticos y matemáticos de la demostración, al evaluar argumentos matemáticos. La investigación se posiciona en el paradigma interpretativo y tiene un enfoque cualitativo. Consta de dos fases empíricas: en la primera, se aplicó un cuestionario sobre los aspectos lógico-sintácticos a 25 sujetos, durante los meses de setiembre y octubre de 2018 y, en la segunda, un cuestionario sobre los aspectos matemáticos a 19 sujetos, durante los meses de mayo y junio de 2019. Para el análisis de la información, se propusieron indicadores de conocimientos, entendidos como frases para determinar evidencias de conocimientos en las respuestas de los sujetos. Se apreció que la gran mayoría de los futuros profesores de matemáticas evidencian conocimiento para discriminar cuándo un argumento matemático corresponde o no a una demostración en virtud de los aspectos lógicos y sintácticos, y de elementos matemáticos asociados a proposiciones con la estructura de la implicación universal. En general, brindaron mayores evidencias de conocimiento sobre los aspectos lógico-sintácticos que sobre los aspectos matemáticos. Concretamente, evidenciaron que un caso particular o la prueba de la proposición recíproca no demuestra el resultado; asimismo, evidenciaron conocimiento sobre la demostración directa e indirecta de la implicación universal. En el caso de los aspectos matemáticos considerados como las hipótesis, los axiomas, las definiciones y los teoremas, se apreció que podrían tener diferentes niveles de dificultades para comprender una demostración.

The aim of this study is to investigate students’ conceptions about proof in mathematics and mathematics teaching. A five‐point Likert‐type questionnaire was administered in order to gather data. The sample of the study included 33 first‐year secondary school mathematics students (at the same time student teachers). The data collected were analysed and interpreted using the methods of qualitative and quantitative

The objective of this study is to characterize the knowledge of mathematics teachers in initial training (MTITs) at the Universidad Nacional (Costa Rica) on the logic-syntactic and mathematical aspects involved in proving, when evaluating mathematical arguments. The research is positioned in the interpretive paradigm and has a qualitative approach. It consists of two empirical phases: in the first, a questionnaire regarding logic-syntactic aspects was applied to 25 subjects, during the months of September and October 2018 and; in the second phase, a second questionnaire covering mathematical aspects was applied to 19 subjects, during the months of May and June 2019. For the analysis of the information, knowledge indicators were proposed. Knowledge indicators are understood as phrases to determine evidence of knowledge in the responses of the subjects. It was appreciated that the vast majority of future mathematics teachers show knowledge to discriminate when a mathematical argument corresponds or not to a proof by virtue of the logic and syntactic aspects, and of mathematical elements associated with propositions with the structure of universal implication. In general, subjects displayed greater evidence of knowledge on the logic-syntactic aspects than on the mathematical aspects. Specifically, they evidenced that consideration of a particular case or the proof of the reciprocal proposition does not prove the result; likewise, subjects evidenced knowledge about the direct and indirect proof of the universal implication. In the case of the mathematical aspects considered as hypotheses, axioms, definitions and theorems, it was appreciated that subjects could have different levels of difficulties to understand a proof.

There is overwhelming evidence that students face serious challenges in learning mathematical proof. Studies have found that students possess a superficial understanding of mathematical proof. With the aim of contributing to efforts intended to develop a comprehensive conception of mathematical proof, literature search was conducted to identify areas where research could be directed in order to increase proof understanding among students. To accomplish this goal, literature on modes of reasoning involved in proof construction, ideas on the classification of activities that constitute a proof path, and categories of proof understanding are exemplified using mathematical content drawn from Real Analysis. These exemplifications were used to illustrate the connections between modes of reasoning and levels of proof understanding. With regard to students' fragile grasp of mathematical proof this critique of literature has revealed that many previous studies have given prominence to proof validations while there is lack of crucial interplay between structural and inductive modes of reasoning during proving by students. Hence, it is suggested in this paper that current research could also focus on mechanisms that promote an analytic conceptions of mathematical proof that are comprehensive enough to allow students to engage in more robust proof constructions.

To those brought up in a logic-based tradition there seems to be a simple and clear definition of proof. But this is largely a twentieth century invention; many earlier proofs had a different nature. We will look particularly at the faulty proof of Euler's Theorem and Lakatos' rational reconstruction of the history of this proof. We will ask: how is it possible for the errors in a faulty proof to remain undetected for several years—even when counter-examples to it are known? How is it possible to have a proof about concepts that are only partially defined? And can we give a logic-based account of such phenomena? We introduce the concept of schematic proofs and argue that they offer a possible cognitive model for the human construction of proofs in mathematics. In particular, we show how they can account for persistent errors in proofs.

The proofs of Chaitin and Boolos for Godel's Incompleteness Theorem are studied from the perspectives of constructibility and Rosserizability. By Rosserization of a proof we mean that the independence of the true but unprovable sentence can be shown by assuming only the (simple) consistency of the theory. It is known that Godel's own proof for his incompleteness theorem is not Rosserizable, and we show that neither are Kleene's or Boolos' proofs. However, we prove a Rosserized version of Chaitin's (incompleteness) theorem. The proofs of Godel, Rosser and Kleene are constructive in the sense that they explicitly construct, by algorithmic ways, the independent sentence(s) from the theory. We show that the proofs of Chaitin and Boolos are not constructive, and they prove only the mere existence of the independent sentences.

In this paper we present a synthesis of main research publications on the teaching and learning of proof. Our aim is to provide a reference to the mathematics educators interested in this topic. The paper is organized based on the following research topics: Historic-epistemological issues, Proof in curriculum, Students' conceptions and difficulties, Relationship among ar-

This study was conducted to determine the views of high school students about proof and these students’ levels of proof. Case study method was used in this descriptive study. The data of the study were obtained by conducting a questionnaire which consists of eight open-ended questions to total 125 10th grade students studying in two different secondary schools in Trabzon during 2006-2007 school year. The views of the students regarding proof were coded and their levels of proof were analyzed based on the classification of Miyazaki related to proof. At the end of the study, high school students’ competencies of doing proof were found below the desired level, as well as their use of different proof types. Based on these results, it's recommended to give room in the classes to activities that would improve students’ mathematical thinking skills and increase their levels of proof.