MODULE IV

The Nature of Mathematics

LESSON 1 - What is mathematics?

LESSON 2 - What do
mathematicians do?

LESSON 3 - Is mathematics
invented
or created?
 MODULE IV

THE NATURE OF MATHEM

ATICS

 INTRODUCTION

This module presents the nature of mathematics. It is where your will

learn what is mathematics, what so mathematicians do and is math created
or discovered.

OBJECTIVE
S

After studying the module, you should be able to:

10. Discuss what is mathematics from a variety of points of view

11. Discuss and describe what mathematicians do.
12. Discuss and debate the origin of mathematics

 DIRECTIONS/ MODULE ORGANIZER

There are three lessons in the module. Read each lesson carefully then
answer the exercises/activities to find out how much you have benefited
from it. Work on these exercises carefully and submit your output to your
instructor.

In case you encounter difficulty, discuss this with your instructor during the
face-to-face meeting. If not contact your instructor thru online.

Good luck and happy reading!!!

Lesson 1

 What is mathematics?

Carl Friedrich Gauss one of the greatest mathematicians, is said to

have claimed: "Mathematics is the queen of the sciences and number theory
is the queen of mathematics." The properties of primes play a crucial part in
number theory. An intriguing question is how they are distributed among
the other integers.

Mathematics, the science of structure, order, and relation that has

evolved from elemental practices of counting, measuring, and describing the
shapes of objects. It deals with logical reasoning and quantitative
calculation, and its development has involved an increasing degree of
idealization and abstraction of its subject matter. Since the 17th century,
mathematics has been an indispensable adjunct to the physical sciences and
technology, and in more recent times it has assumed a similar role in the
quantitative aspects of the life sciences.

In many cultures—under the stimulus of the needs of practical

pursuits, such as commerce and agriculture—mathematics has developed far
beyond basic counting. This growth has been greatest in society‘s complex
enough to sustain these activities and to provide leisure for contemplation
and the opportunity to build on the achievements of earlier mathematicians.

All mathematical systems (for example, Euclidean geometry) are

combinations of sets of axioms and of theorems that can be logically
deduced from the axioms. Inquiries into the logical and philosophical basis of
mathematics reduce to questions of whether the axioms of a given system
ensure its completeness and its consistency.

There are creative tensions in mathematics between beauty and utility,

abstraction and application, between a search for unity and a desire to treat
phenomena comprehensively. Keith Devlin has called mathematics a
"science of patterns", which ties in with the ideas of beauty, abstraction and
the search for unity. He has also said that "mathematics makes the invisible
visible‖, referring to representation, modeling and application of
mathematics. For example, drawing a bar graph makes statistical
information visible.
 Here is a quote from the Foreword to the Japanese Edition of an 11th
grade text [Kodaira 1991]:
Mathematics was originally linked with science and technology; however, it
gradually became independent of science and technology, and present-day
mathematicians think freely about virtually everything possible. Therefore,
mathematics is said to be a free creation of the human spirit.

Special characteristics of mathematics are the clarity and precision of

definitions, including usage of words in ways that differ from their use in
everyday language, and the certainty of mathematical truth based on
deductive mathematical reasoning. Given what Wigner call the
"unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics", all students should learn the
basic nature of mathematics and mathematical reasoning and its use in
organizing and modeling natural phenomena.

In the practice of mathematics, typically some concepts and

statements are taken as given. They may be applied or serve as the
foundation for the development of further mathematics. Additional concepts
can be defined carefully in terms of the given ones. Conjectures can be
developed on the basis of experience with examples. Further statements can
be proved deductively based on what has been assumed. This process has
been repeated extensively, resulting in mathematics having its own intricate
structure, with concepts and areas of specialization that require considerable
time and study to grasp.

Moreover mathematics is interconnected in many interesting ways. It

may be useful [Swafford 1997] to think of students learning mathematics
along the lines of a generalized structure of reasoning based on the van
Hiele levels developed in the 1950s [Van Hiele 1986]: (1)recognition,
(2)analysis, (3)informal deduction, (4)formal deduction, (5) axiomatic. In
early grades, students learn the basic language including the critical logical
words "and", "or", "not", "there is/are", "for some", "for every", "for all". They
see multidigit numbers being built from single digit numbers. They match
the trajectory of a kicked ball with the concept of line. They recognize
patterns in sequences of numbers and shapes.

In middle grades students develop habits of reasoning "locally",

clarifying the assumptions of a particular problems and examining the steps
involved in the solution to determine correctness. For example, one of us
recently observed a fifth grade teacher asking her students for the definition
of polygon. They knew, for example that triangles, squares and hexagons
were polygons. It was exciting to see the students wrestling with abstraction,
differentiating polygons from circles, and finally focusing on polygons as
figures with sides.
 By the end of high school, students should be aware of the global
deductive nature of axiomatic mathematics. They should be familiar with the
connections between our number systems and algebra, between algebra and
geometry. They should be comfortable reasoning with short sequences of
statements with Venn diagrams and other visual and diagrammatic methods.
They should have experience with modeling, recognizing for example that
certain natural phenomena obey linear relationships and that linear
relationships make prediction so easy that we try to approximate other more
complicated phenomena by linear ones. It is important both to understand
how algebraic relationships can describe particular problems and to
understand the power derived by working abstractly with the mathematics
which applies to many different situations.

Lesson 2

 What do mathematicians do?

Whether it be at a party or at a tavern or while being examined by a

physician, on announcing that you are a mathematician, you are likely to be
greeted with comments about your companion‘s failure in high school math,
or a request for a brief account of the proof of Fermat‘s Last Theorem, or
perhaps an offer of a counterexample to the Four Color Theorem. Your
parents, your friends and relatives, airplane seatmates, or your dean or
provost are not likely to be mathematicians, and they too would like to know
what you do, preferably in bite-sized pieces. Might we provide an everyday
description that has sufficient technical detail so that a mathematician would
recognize the work as real research mathematics? I suggest that if we think
of mathematical work as showing that what might seem arbitrary is actually
necessary, as analyzing everyday notions, as calculation, and as analogizing.

Conventions

Mathematicians make certain notions conventional. What might seem

arbitrary is shown to be in effect necessary, at least within a wide enough
range of situations. For example, means and variances were once taken
merely as ways of ―combining observations‖, to use a term of art of two
hundred years ago. There were other ways, including medians and average
absolute deviations (Σ|xi − x|/N). But through the central limit theorem, for
example, the variance became entrenched as a good measure of the width
of a distribution for various different kinds of more or less identically
distributed independent random variables. Moreover, it was easy to depict
such statistics in a Euclidean space of observations, the various formulas
being Pythagorean theorems with Euclidean distances.
Analyzing Everyday Notions

Mathematicians formally analyze everyday notions. Topology

developed as a way of understanding nearbyness, connectivity, and
networks. It turned out that the key idea was continuity of mappings and
how that continuity was affected by other transformations. For continuity
preserved nearbyness, connectivity, and networks. Of course, this demanded
a number of conceptual and mathematical discoveries.
One great discovery was the subtleties of continuity, uniform vs.
pointwise, for example. A second discovery was the fact that one might
represent continuity and neighborhoods in terms of mappings: if the
neighborhood of a point was mapped into an open set, that neighborhood
itself was open, if the mapping was continuous. A third discovery was that
networks could be characterized in terms of how they decomposed into
simpler networks and that characterization would be preserved under
continuous mappings. Moreover, a space might well be approximated by a
skeletal framework, and a study of that framework would tell us about the
space. A fourth discovery was that that decomposition sequence had a
natural algebraic analog in commutative algebra. And a fifth discovery was
that the algebraic decomposition had a natural analog with derivatives and
second derivatives (Stokes‘s and Green‘s theorems and Gibbs‘s vector
calculus), again the world of continuity. As a consequence of this analysis, it
was realized that there are many different kinds of nearbyness and many
different topologies for a space, yet they might share important features.
Functions came to be understood as mappings, in terms of what they did.
And the transcendental realm turned out to be deeply involved with the
algebraic realm. That analysis of everyday notions led to powerful
technologies for analyzing connectivity and networks, techniques vital to
current society. Those technologies are grounded in the formal mathematical
analysis.

Calculation

Perhaps ―proofs should be driven not by calculation but solely by

ideas‖, as Hilbert averred in what he called Riemann‘s Principle. But some of
the time, if not often, mathematicians have to calculate—doggedly and
lengthily—in order to get interesting results. In some future time, knowing
the solution, other mathematicians may well be able to provide a one-line
proof driven solely by ideas, plus a great deal of mathematical
superstructure built up in the intervening period of time. Or, in fact, lengthy
proof and calculation are unavoidable, and delicate arguments involving
hairy technology are the only way to go.

The mathematician‘s achievement is, first of all, to actually follow

through on that long and complex calculation and come to a useful
conclusion, and, second, to present that calculation so that it is mildly
illuminating. As we shall see, such a presentation involves matters of
structure, organizing the whole; strategy, being able to tell a story about
how it all holds together; and tactics, being able to do what needs to be done
to get on with the next main step of the proof. The first proof, by Dyson and
Lenard (1967– 1968), of the stability of matter—that bulk matter, held
together by electrical forces of electrons and nuclei, won‘t collapse (then to
explode)—is considered one of these long and elaborate calculations. What
one has to prove is that the binding energy of bulk matter per nucleus is
bounded from below by a negative constant, −E . The proof begins with an
idea: an insight by Onsager (1939) about how to incorporate the screening of
positively charged nuclei by negatively charged electrons. But the actual
calculation would seem to involve a number of preliminary theorems and a
goodly number of lemmas, all of which might seem a bit distant from the
main problem.

Actually, many of the preliminary theorems motivate the proof and

indicate what is needed if a proof is to go through. And the lemmas might be
seen as lemmas hanging from a tree of theorems or troops lined up to do
particular work. As in many such calculations, the result almost miraculously
appears at the end. And in this case the proportionality constant is about
1014 larger in absolute value than it need be. A few years later, Lieb and
Thirring (1975) were able to figure out how to efficiently use the crucial
physics of the problem (Onsager‘s screening, and also that the electrons are
fermions and are represented by antisymmetric wave functions). As a
consequence, the proof was now about ideas, involved comparatively little
calculation, and could be readily seen in outline, and the proportionality
constant was about 10 rather than 1014. Their crucial move was to employ
the Thomas-Fermi model of an atom: the many electrons in an atom exist in
a field due to their own charges (as well as that of the nucleus), and hence
one seeks a self-consistent field. Dyson and Lenard had all these ideas
except for Thomas-Fermi. But in their pioneering proof, getting to the
endpoint was avowedly more important than efficiency or controlling the size
of the proportionality constant, −E . Theirs was a first proof of a fundamental
fact of our world. By the way, in retrospect, the DysonLenard proof is rather
less long than it once appeared, its various manipulations along the way
rather more rich with meaning. Over the next decades a variety of rigorous
proofs were provided of various fundamental facts about our world, many of
which proofs are lengthy and complex and involve much calculation.

Analogy

Some time ago, Pólya showed that analogy plays a vital role in
mathematical work. Sometimes those analogies are provably true, such as
the analogy between ideals and varieties: polynomials and their properties,
considered as algebraic objects, and the graphs of those polynomials and
their properties, considered as geometric objects. At other times, the
analogies are not provable but provide for ongoing research programs for
hundreds of years. Here I want to describe a syzygy, an analogy of
analogies, between mathematical work and work in mathematical physics.
What the physicists find, the mathematicians would expect, although the
mathematicians could never have predicted such an analogy in the physical
realm without the physicists‘ work.

What Do Mathematicians Do?

Words such as convention, analyzing everyday notions, calculation,

and analogy might be used to describe activities other than mathematics.
And it is just in this sense that we might give outsiders a sense of what
mathematicians do. At the same time, those notions have very specific
meanings for mathematical work. And it is just in this latter sense that we
might describe mathematics to ourselves. The shared set of terms allows us
to connect our highly technical and often esoteric work with the work of
others. Mathematicians show why some ways of thinking of the world are the
right ways, they explore our everyday intuitions and make them rather more
precise, they do long and tortuous calculations in order to reveal the
consequences of their theories, and they explore analogies of one theory
with others in order to find out the truths of the mathematical world. I would
also claim that, in a very specific sense, mathematical work is a form of
philosophical analysis. The mathematicians and mathematical physicists find
out through their rigorous proofs just which features of the world are
necessary if we are to have the kind of world we do have. For example, if
there is to be stability of matter, electrons must be fermions. The
mathematicians show just what we mean by everyday notions such as an
average or nearbyness. And mathematics connects diverse phenomena
through encompassing theories and speculative analogies. So when you are
asked, What do mathematicians do?, you can say: I like to think we are just
like lawyers or philosophers who explore the meanings of our everyday
concepts, we are like inventors who employ analogies to solve problems, and
we are like marketers who try to convince others they ought to think
―Kodak‖ when they hear ―photography‖ (or the competition, who try to
convince them that they ought to think ―Fuji‖). Moreover, some of the time,
our work is not unlike solving a two-thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle, all in one
color. That surely involves lots of scut work, but also ingenuity along the way
in dividing up the work, sorting the pieces, and knowing that it often makes
sense to build the border first.
Lesson 3

 Is mathematics invented or created?

Mathematics is the language of science and has enabled mankind to

make extraordinary technological advances. There is no question that the
logic and order that underpins mathematics, has served us in describing the
patterns and structure we find in nature.

The successes that have been achieved, from the mathematics of the
cosmos down to electronic devices at the microscale, are significant. Einstein
remarked, ―How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of
human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably
appropriate to the objects of reality?‖ Amongst mathematicians and
scientists there is no consensus on this fascinating question. The various
types of responses to Einstein‘s conundrum include:

1) Math is innate. The reason mathematics is the natural language of

science, is that the universe is underpinned by the same order. The
structures of mathematics are intrinsic to nature. Moreover, if the universe
disappeared tomorrow, our eternal mathematical truths would still exist. It is
up to us to discover mathematics and its workings—this will then assist us in
building models that will give us predictive power and understanding of the
physical phenomena we seek to control. This rather romantic position is what
I loosely call mathematical Platonism.

2) Math is a human construct. The only reason mathematics is

admirably suited describing the physical world is that we invented it to do
just that. It is a product of the human mind and we make mathematics up as
we go along to suit our purposes. If the universe disappeared, there would
be no mathematics in the same way that there would be no football, tennis,
chess or any other set of rules with relational structures that we contrived.
Mathematics is not discovered, it is invented. This is the nonPlatonist
position.

3) Math is not so successful. Those that marvel at the ubiquity of

mathematical applications have perhaps been seduced by an overstatement
of their successes. Analytical mathematical equations only approximately
describe the real world, and even then only describe a limited subset of all
the phenomena around us. We tend to focus on those physical problems for
which we find a way to apply mathematics, so overemphasis on these
successes is a form of ―cherry picking.‖ This is the realist position.
4) Keep calm and carry on. What matters is that mathematics produces
results. Save the hot air for philosophers. This is called the ―shut up and
calculate‖ position.
The debate over the fundamental nature of mathematics is by no means
new, and has raged since the time of the Pythagoreans. Can we use our
hindsight now to shed any light on the above four positions?

A recent development within the last century was the discovery of

fractals. Beautiful complex patterns, such as the Mandelbrot set, can be
generated from simple iterative equations. Mathematical Platonists eagerly
point out that elegant fractal patterns are common in nature, and that
mathematicians clearly discover rather than invent them. A
counterargument is that any set of rules has emergent properties. For
example, the rules of chess are clearly a human contrivance, yet they result
in a set of elegant and sometimes surprising characteristics. There are
infinite numbers of possible iterative equations one can possibly construct,
and if we focus on the small subset that result in beautiful fractal patterns
we have merely seduced ourselves.

Take the example of infinite monkeys on keyboards. It appears

miraculous when an individual monkey types a Shakespeare sonnet. But
when we see the whole context, we realize all the monkeys are merely
typing gibberish. In a similar way, it is easy to be seduced into thinking that
mathematics is miraculously innate if we are overly focused on its successes,
without viewing the complete picture.

The non-Platonist view is that, first, all mathematical models are

approximations of reality. Second, our models fail, they go through a process
of revision, and we invent new mathematics as needed. Analytical
mathematical expressions are a product of the human mind, tailored for the
mind. Because of our limited brainpower we seek out compact elegant
mathematical descriptions to make predictions. Those predictions are not
guaranteed to be correct, and experimental verification is always required.
What we have witnessed over the past few decades, as transistor sizes have
shrunk, is that nice compact mathematical expressions for ultra small
transistors are not possible. We could use highly cumbersome equations, but
that isn‘t the point of mathematics. So we resort to computer simulations
using empirical models. And this is how much of cutting edge engineering is
done these days.

The realist picture is simply an extension of this non-Platonist position,

emphasizing that compact analytical mathematical expressions of the
physical world around us are not as successful or ubiquitous as we‘d like to
believe. The picture that consistently emerges is that all mathematical
models of the physical world break down at some point. Moreover, the types
of problems addressed by elegant mathematical expressions are a rapidly
shrinking subset of all the currently emerging scientific questions.

But why does this all matter? The ―shut up and calculate‖ position tells us to
not worry about such questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_xR5Kes4Rs

 MODULE
SUMMARY

In module IV, you have learned about the nature of mathematics that
defines and described what mathematics is, what skills that mathematicians
do and debates between mathematics is invented or created.

There are three lessons in module IV. Lesson 1 focused on the beginning of
mathematics.

Lesson 2 deals with mathematicians on what they do.

Lesson 3 discusses mathematics wherein it is invented or created.

Congratulations! You have just studied Module IV. Now you are ready to
evaluate how much you have benefited from your reading by answering the
summative test. Good Luck!!!

 SUMMATIVE TEST

1. In your own words, answer the following questions.

a. What is Mathematics? Justify
b. Where Should We Study Mathematics?
c. How Should We Learn Mathematics?
d. Who Should Learn Mathematics?
e. Should Mathematics Be A Required Subject?
f. What Is The (New?) Purpose of Math Education
 MODULE V

Issues and Aspects

LESSON 1 - The concepts and

role of the proof

LESSON 2 - Mathematics and

technology
 MODULE V

ISSUES AND
ASPECTS

 INTRODUCTION

This module presents the issues and aspect. It is where your will
learn the concept of proof or way of proving and the integration of
technology in mathematics.

OBJECTIVE
S

After studying the module, you should be able to:

13. Discuss the foundations and formalism of mathematics

14. Discuss the relationship between mathematics and emergence of
technology

 DIRECTIONS/ MODULE ORGANIZER

There are two lessons in the module. Read each lesson carefully then
answer the exercises/activities to find out how much you have benefited
from it. Work on these exercises carefully and submit your output to your
instructor.

In case you encounter difficulty, discuss this with your instructor during
the face-to-face meeting. If not contact your instructor thru online.

Good luck and happy reading!!!

Lesson 1

 The concepts and role of the proof

A mathematician is a master of critical thinking, of analysis, and of

deductive reasoning. These skills travel well, and can be applied in a large
variety of situations— and in many different disciplines. Today,
mathematical skills are being put to good use in medicine, physics, law,
commerce, Internet design, engineering, chemistry, biological science,
social science, anthropology, genetics, warfare, cryptography, plastic
surgery, security analysis, data manipulation, computer science, and in
many other disciplines and endeavors as well.

The unique feature that sets mathematics apart from other

sciences, from philosophy, and indeed from all other forms of intellectual
discourse, is the use of rigorous proof. It is the proof concept that makes
the subject cohere, that gives it its timelessness, and that enables it to
travel well. The purpose of this discussion is to describe proof, to put it in
context, to give its history, and to explain its significance.

There is no other scientific or analytical discipline that uses proof as

readily and routinely as does mathematics. This is the device that makes
theoretical mathematics special: the tightly knit chain of reasoning,
following strict logical rules, that leads inexorably to a particular
conclusion. It is proof that is our device for establishing the absolute and
irrevocable truth of statements in our subject. This is the reason that we
can depend on mathematics that was done by Euclid 2300 years ago as
readily as we believe in the mathematics that is done today. No other
discipline can make such an assertion.

The Concept of Proof

The tradition of mathematics is a long and glorious one. Along with

philosophy, it is the oldest venue of human intellectual inquiry. It is in the
nature of the human condition to want to understand the world around
us, and mathematics is a natural vehicle for doing so. Mathematics is also
a subject that is beautiful and worthwhile in its own right. A scholarly
pursuit that had intrinsic merit and aesthetic appeal, mathematics is
certainly worth studying for its own sake.

In its earliest days, mathematics was often bound up with practical

questions. The Egyptians, as well as the Greeks, were concerned with
surveying land. Thus it was natural to consider questions of geometry and
trigonometry. Certainly triangles and rectangles came up in a natural way
in this context, so early geometry concentrated on these constructs.
Circles, too, were natural to consider—for the design of arenas and water
tanks and other practical projects. So ancient geometry (and Euclid‘s
axioms for geometry) discussed circles.

The earliest mathematics was phenomenological. If one could draw

a plausible picture, or give a compelling description, then that was all the
justification that was needed for a mathematical ―fact‖. Sometimes one
argued by analogy. Or by invoking the gods.

The notion that mathematical statements could be proved was not

yet an idea that had been developed. There was no standard for the
concept of proof. The logical structure, the ―rules of the game‖, had not
yet been created.

Thus we are led to ask: What is a proof? Heuristically, a proof is a

rhetorical device for convincing someone else that a mathematical
statement is true or valid. And how might one do this? A moment‘s
thought suggests that a natural way to prove that something new (call it
B) is true is to relate it to something old (call it A) that has already been
accepted as true. Thus arises the concept of deriving a new result from
an old result. See Figure 2. The next question then is, ―How was the old
result verified?‖ Applying this regimen repeatedly, we find ourselves
considering a chain of reasoning as in Figure 3. But then one cannot help
but ask: ―Where does the chain begin?‖ And this is a fundamental issue.
 It will not do to say that the chain has no beginning: it extends
infinitely far back into the fogs of time. Because if that were the case it
would undercut our thinking of what a proof should be. We are
endeavoring to justify new mathematical facts in terms of old
mathematical facts. But if the reasoning regresses infinitely far back into
the past, then we cannot in fact ever grasp a basis or initial justification
for our reasoning. As we shall see below, the answer to these questions is
that the mathematician puts into place definitions and axioms before
beginning to explore the firmament, determine what is true, and then to
prove it. Considerable discussion will be required to put this paradigm
into context.

As a result of these questions, ancient mathematicians had to think

hard about the nature of mathematical proof. Thales (640 B.C.E.–546
B.C.E.), Eudoxus (408 B.C.E.–355 B.C.E.), and Theaetetus of Athens (417
B.C.E.– 369 B.C.E.) actually formulated theorems. Thales definitely proved
some theorems in geometry (and these were later put into a broader
context by Euclid). A theorem is the mathematician‘s formal enunciation
of a fact or truth. But Eudoxus fell short in finding means to prove his
theorems. His work had a distinctly practical bent, and he was particularly
fond of calculations.

It was Euclid of Alexandria who first formalized the way that we now
think about mathematics. Euclid had definitions and axioms and then
theorems—in that order. There is no gainsaying the assertion that Euclid
set the paradigm by which we have been practicing mathematics for
2300 years. This was mathematics done right. Now, following Euclid, in
order to address the issue of the infinitely regressing chain of reasoning,
we begin our studies by putting into place a set of Definitions and a set of
Axioms.

What is a definition? A definition explains the meaning of a piece of

terminology. There are logical problems with even this simple idea, for
consider the first definition that we are going to formulate. Suppose that
we wish to define a rectangle. This will be the first piece of terminology in
our mathematical system. What words can we use to define it? Suppose
that we define rectangle in terms of points and lines and planes and right
angles. That begs the questions: What is a point?
What is a line? What is a plane? How do we define ―angle‖? What is a
right angle?

Thus we see that our first definition(s) must be formulated in terms

of commonly accepted words that require no further explanation. It was
Aristotle (384 B.C.E.–322 B.C.E.) who insisted that a definition must
describe the concept being defined in terms of other concepts already
known. This is often quite difficult. As an example, Euclid defined a point
to be that which has no part. Thus he is using words outside of
mathematics, that are a commonly accepted part of everyday argot, to
explain the precise mathematical notion of ―point‖.2 Once ―point‖ is
defined, then one can use that term in later definitions—for example, to
define ―line‖. And one will also use everyday language that does not
require further explication. That is how we build up our system of
definitions.

The definitions give us then a language for doing mathematics. We

formulate our results, or theorems, by using the words that have been
established in the definitions. But wait, we are not yet ready for
theorems. Because we have to lay cornerstones upon which our
reasoning can develop. That is the purpose of axioms.

What is an axiom? An axiom (or postulate) is a mathematical

statement of fact, formulated using the terminology that has been
defined in the definitions, that is taken to be self-evident. An axiom
embodies a crisp, clean mathematical assertion. One does not prove an
axiom. One takes the axiom to be given, and to be so obvious and
plausible that no proof is required.

Generally speaking, in any subject area of mathematics, one begins

with a brief list of definitions and a brief list of axioms. Once these are in
place, and are accepted and understood, then one can begin proving
theorems. and what is a proof? A proof is a rhetorical device for
convincing another mathematician that a given statement (the theorem)
is true. Thus a proof can take many different forms. The most traditional
form of mathematical proof is that it is a tightly knit sequence of
statements linked together by strict rules of logic. But the purpose of the
present article is to discuss and consider the various forms that a proof
might take. Today, a proof could (and often does) take the traditional
form that goes back 2300 years to the time of Euclid. But it could also
consist of a computer calculation. Or it could consist of constructing a
physical model. Or it could consist of a computer simulation or model. Or
it could consist of a computer algebra computation using Mathematica or
Maple or MatLab. It could also consist of an agglomeration of these
various techniques.
What Does a Proof Consist Of?

Most of the steps of a mathematical proof are applications of the

elementary rules of logic. This is a slight oversimplification, as there are a
great many proof techniques that have been developed over the past two
centuries. These include proof by mathematical induction, proof by
contradiction, proof by exhaustion, and proof by enumeration, and many
others. But they are all built on one simple rule: modus ponendo ponens.
This rule of logic says that if we know that ―A implies B‖, and if we know
―A‖, then we may conclude B. Thus a proof is a sequence of steps linked
together by modus ponendo ponens.

It is really an elegant and powerful system. Occam‘s Razor is a

logical principle posited in the fourteenth century (by William of Occam
(1288 C.E.–1348 C.E.)) which advocates that your proof system should
have the smallest possible set of axioms and logical rules. That way you
minimize the possibility that there are internal contradictions built into
the system, and also you make it easier to find the source of your ideas.
Inspired both by Euclid‘s Elements and by Occam‘s Razor, mathematics
has striven for all of modern time to keep the fundamentals of its subject
as streamlined and elegant as possible. We want our list of definitions to
be as short as possible, and we want our collection of axioms or
postulates to be as concise and elegant as possible. If you open up a
classic text on group theory—such as Marshall Hall‘s masterpiece [HAL],
you will find that there are just three axioms on the first page. The entire
434-page book is built on just those three axioms. or instead have a look
at Walter Rudin‘s classic Principles of Mathematical Analysis [RUD]. There
the subject of real variables is built on just twelve axioms. Or look at a
foundational book on set theory like Suppes [SUP] or Hrbacek and Jech
[HRJ]. There we see the entire subject built on eight axioms.

The Purpose of Proof

The experimental sciences (physics, biology, chemistry, for

example) tend to use laboratory experiments or tests to check and verify
assertions. The benchmark in these subjects is the reproducible
experiment with control. In their published papers, these scientists will
briefly describe what they have discovered, and how they carried out the
steps of the corresponding experiment. They will describe the control,
which is the standard against which the experimental results are
compared. Those scientists who are interested can, on reading the article,
then turn around and replicate the experiment in their own labs. The
really classic, and fundamental and important, experiments become
classroom material and are reproduced by students all over the world.
Most experimental science is not derived from fundamental principles
(like axioms). The intellectual process is more empirical, and the
verification procedure is correspondingly practical and direct.
 Mathematics is quite a different sort of intellectual enterprise. In
mathematics we set our definitions and axioms in place before we do
anything else. In particular, before we endeavor to derive any results we
must engage in a certain amount of preparatory work. Then we give
precise, elegant formulations of statements and we prove them. Any
statement in mathematics which lacks a proof has no currency. Nobody
will take it as valid. And nobody will use it in his/her own work. The proof
is the final test of any new idea. And, once a proof is in place that is the
end of the discussion. Nobody will ever find a counterexample, nor ever
gainsay that particular mathematical fact.

Another special feature of mathematics is its timelessness. The

theorems that Euclid and Pythagoras proved 2500 years ago are still valid
today; and we use them with confidence because we know that they are
just as true today as they were when those great masters first discovered
them. Other sciences are quite different. The medical or computer
science literature of even three years ago is considered to be virtually
useless. Because what people thought was correct a few years ago has
already changed and migrated and transmogrified. Mathematics, by
contrast, is here forever.

What is marvelous is that, in spite of the appearance of some

artificiality in the mathematical process, mathematics provides beautiful
models for nature. Over and over again, and more with each passing
year, mathematics has helped to explain how the world around us works.
Just a few examples illustrate the point: • Isaac Newton derived Kepler‘s
three laws of planetary motion from just his universal law of gravitation
and calculus. • There is a complete mathematical theory of the refraction
of light (due to Isaac Newton, Willebrord Snell, and Pierre de Fermat).

• There is a mathematical theory of the propagation of heat.

• There is a mathematical theory of electromagnetic waves.

• All of classical field theory from physics is formulated in terms

of mathematics.

• Einstein‘s field equations are analyzed using mathematics.

• The motion of falling bodies and projectiles is completely

analyzable with mathematics.

• The technology for locating distant submarines using radar

and sonar waves is all founded in mathematics.

• The theory of image processing and image compression is all

founded in mathematics.
 • The design of music CDs is all based on Fourier analysis and
coding theory, both branches of mathematics.

The list could go on and on. The key point to be understood here is
that proof is central to what modern mathematics is about, and what
makes it reliable and reproducible. No other science depends on proof,
and therefore no other science has the bulletproof solidity of
mathematics. But mathematics is applied in a variety of ways, in a vast
panorama of disciplines. And the applications are many and varied. Other
disciplines often like to reduce their theories to mathematics— or at least
explain them in mathematical terms—because it gives the subject a
certain elegance and solidity. And it looks really sophisticated. Such
efforts meet with varying success.

The History of Mathematical Proof

In point of fact the history of the proof concept is rather inchoate. It

is unclear just when mathematicians and philosophers conceived of the
notion that mathematical assertions required justification. This was quite
a new idea. Then it was another considerable leap to devise methods for
constructing such a justification. In the present section we shall outline
what little is known about the development of the proof concept.

Perhaps the first mathematical ―proof‖ in recorded history is due to

the Babylonians. They seem (along with the Chinese) to have been aware
of the Pythagorean Theorem (discussed in detail below) well before
Pythagoras. The Babylonians had certain diagrams that indicate why the
Pythagorean Theorem is true, and tablets have been found to validate
this fact. They also had methods for calculating Pythagorean triples—that
is, triples of integers (or whole numbers) a, b, c that satisfy a2 + b2 = c2
as in the Pythagorean theorem.
Lesson 2

 Mathematics and technology: the role of computers

Technology, the application of scientific knowledge to the practical

aims of human life or, as it is sometimes phrased, to the change and
manipulation of the human environment.

History of technology, the development over time of systematic

techniques for making and doing things. The term technology, a
combination of the Greek technē, ―art, craft, ‖ with logos, ―word,
speech, and ‖ meant in Greece a discourse on the arts, both fine and
applied. When it first appeared in English in the 17th century, it was used
to mean a discussion of the applied arts only, and gradually these ―arts‖
themselves came to be the object of the designation. By the early 20th
century, the term embraced a growing range of means, processes, and
ideas in addition to tools and machines. By mid-century, technology was
defined by such phrases as ―the means or activity by which man seeks
to change or manipulate his environment.‖ even such broad definitions
have been criticized by observers who point out the increasing difficulty
of distinguishing between scientific inquiry and technological activity.

A highly compressed account of the history of technology such as

this one must adopt a rigorous methodological pattern if it is to do justice
to the subject without grossly distorting it one way or another. The plan
followed in the present article is primarily chronological, tracing the
development of technology through phases that succeed each other in
time. Obviously, the division between phases is to a large extent
arbitrary. One factor in the weighting has been the enormous acceleration
of Western technological development in recent centuries; Eastern
technology is considered in this article in the main only as it relates to the
development of modern technology.

Within each chronological phase a standard method has been

adopted for surveying the technological experience and innovations. This
begins with a brief review of the general social conditions of the period
under discussion, and then goes on to consider the dominant materials
and sources of power of the period, and their application to food
production, manufacturing industry, building construction, transport and
communications, military technology, and medical technology. In a final
section the sociocultural consequences of technological change in the
period are examined. This framework is modified according to the
particular requirements of every period— discussions of new materials,
for instance, occupy a substantial place in the accounts of earlier phases
when new metals were being introduced but are comparatively
unimportant in descriptions of some of the later phases—but the general
pattern is retained throughout. One key factor that does not fit easily into
this pattern is that of the development of tools. It has seemed most
convenient to relate these to the study of materials, rather than to any
particular application, but it has not been possible to be completely
consistent in this treatment.

Mathematics instruction is among the most explored research area

in education. There have been considerably varied computer applications
in instruction (Hatfield, 1984). The teachers of mathematics are confused
with the extensive amount of suggestions on how to teach mathematics
with a computer. Teachers ‘attitudes towards computers vary mostly as a
function of teachers‘age or years in service. Complete ‗ignorance‘
attitude towards computers still continues, although its magnitude is
weaker compared to past years This attitude is mostly shared by teachers
who had had their training before the start of the computer age who have
the most negative attitudes towards its pedagogical use and who insist on
using the traditional modes of teaching. Second major attitude is not
being able to abandon their traditional habits completely foreseeing its
potential for the future of education. Most prevalent and widening
attitude is the realization and acceptance of the importance of computers
for education.

There are three broad categories of the applications of computers in

the field of mathematics education:
• Computer assisted instruction (CAI)
• Student (educational) programming
• General purpose educational tools such as
spreadsheets, databases and computer algebra systems (CAS).

This survey of literature revealed that, this categorization is also a

historical one, although it cannot be said that there were sharp shifts
from one movement to another. Another important note is that the CAI
movement is not as popular in the Europe as it is in United States.

The preparation of tomorrow‘s teachers to use technology is one of

the most important issues facing today‘s teacher education programs
(Kaput, 1992; Waits & Demana, 2000). Appropriate and integrated use of
technology impacts every aspect of mathematics education: what
mathematics is taught, how mathematics is taught and learned, and how
mathematics is assessed (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
[NCTM], 2000). Changes in the mathematics curriculum, including the
use of technology, have been advocated for several years. The
Mathematical Sciences Education Board (MSEB) and the National
Research Council maintain that ―the changes in mathematics brought
about by computers and calculators are so profound as to require
readjustment in the balance and approach to virtually every topic in
school mathematics‖ (MSEB, 1990, p. 2). Future mathematics teachers
need to be well versed in the issues and applications of technology.

Technology is a prominent feature of many mathematics

classrooms. According to the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES, 1999), the percentage of public high school classrooms having
access to the Internet jumped from 49% in 1994 to 94% in 1998.
However, the use of computers for instructional purposes still lags behind
the integration of technology in the corporate world and is not used as
frequently or effectively as is needed. One way to close the gap and
bring mathematics education into the 21st century is by preparing
preservice teachers to utilize instructional tools such as graphing
calculators and computers for their future practice.
 MODULE
SUMMARY

In module V, you have learned about the issues and aspects in

mathematics. You have learned the concept of proving and integration of
technology in mathematics.

There are three lessons in module I. Lesson 1 focused on the concept of

proof or step in proving.

Lesson 2 deals with the integration of technology in mathematics: role of

computer.

Congratulations! You have just studied Module V. Now you are ready to
evaluate how much you have benefited from your reading by answering
the summative test. Good Luck!!!

 SUMMATIVE TEST

1. There are 4 basic proof techniques used in Mathematics.

Research the following and give at least 3 examples each.