THE TRANSITION TO

FORMAL KNOWLEDGE
 1) MAJOR CHANGES FROM EMBODIMENT AND SYMBOLISM TO
FORMALISM.
The shift from the practical and theoretical development of embodied objects and symbolic operations to the
formalism of axiomatic systems involves significant changes in meaning where involves principle such as
congruence or the properties of the parallel lines rather than quantified set – theoretic deductions in formal proof.
Meanwhile, proof in arithmetic & algebra, based on the rules of arithmetic, is also a useful prelude to formal proof
from axioms.
School mathematic is based on The terms ‘natural’ and formal are consistent
The shift to an axiomatic formal approach likely to
embodied operations in geometry with their use in history, where natural
be problematic because formal operations do not
arithmetic that arise naturally in philosophy and natural science were use to
require any procedure of operation to be specified.
practical situation. described the study of natural phenomena.

The transition to formal 2) SET AND

mathematics is built on the
concept of set.
Most mathematicians
recognize a set S as
something that has
elements or members
  So, for any x whatever, it can be
determined whether x is a member
of S(written ) or not ()
RELATION A relation between two
Specific types of relations – such as sets A, B is defined to
functions, order relations and be any specified subset
equivalence relations – maybe R of A x B.
conceptualized in individual ways
  In the case of set which can
Building on the implicit Each element in A x B be embodied by the number
relates to precisely line, the set ℝ x ℝ can be
notion of set various new
constructions can be one element in A and visualized in terms of point in
introduced such set A x B one element in B the plane

The functions met in the school
mathematics have various
familiar features that effect the
meaning of the function
concept.
2.1)
InFUNCTIONS
the transition from school to These problematic aspects may
university, knowledge met-
address directly specifically by
befores may suggest implicit encouraging student to reflect on the
properties that a function must
meaning of the formal definition
have.

2.1) RELATIONS BETWEEN ELEMENTS IN THE

SAME SET   When the two sets A and B are the same, we speak of a relation on A and this simply a specific set R of
ordered pairs (x,y) where x,y A.
 this corresponds precisely to the familiar idea x<y where the symbol R is replaced by ‘<‘.
 It can be visualized as a relation by plotting all the points (x,y). (figure 10.3).
 However this picture rarely used instead of order is more usually embodied by marking two whole
numbers x, y on the number line where x<y is represented by drawing x to the left of y.(figure 10.4).
 2) An order relation a) The concept of
1) An order relation is b) Formally, an
on a set A is a set R of equivalence occurs
inspired by the idea of equivalence relation ~
ordered pairs (x,y) throughout
placing the elements of on a set S is defined to
embodiment and
a set in a given order. satisfy the axioms.
symbolism.

3) The notion of order

relation is far more 2.3)
general than anything ORDER The contextual role of an axiom or
a student will have
met before. RELATION definition: a single axiom or definition
may be operate in different ways in
S different contexts and a formal
2.4) structure depends not only on the roles

i n s t a n c e, we can EQUIVALENCE of individual axioms and definitions

4) For of natura
l but also on the interplay between them
s e t
take t h e
a n d extra RELATIONS all within the specific context.
numbers
ℕ
e n t 𝛚 which is
elem t h em all.
fr o m d) These example reveals the rich
different connections built up through c) With such a background of
experience, our interpretation of the
5) In this sense we can previous experience that may cause
notion on an equivalence relation
embody a context where problematic met befores in new
can involve subtle met befores that
the usual set of natural situations that students face in their
transition to formal mathematical are not explicitly given in the set-
numbers potentially
thinking. theoretic definition
continues forever.
 3) REAL NUMBERS AND
LIMIT
2) The idea of being 3) As a result, our 4) in attempting to describe how
1)The idea that quantities can be imagination of students understand real
arbitrary small, but not
‘arbitrary close’ or ‘arbitrary small’ point s and lines numbers and limits, it essential
zero, is consistent with
is a phenomenon that leads based on to see where the students are
our experience of
naturally to a mental concept that perception are as coming from which is they come
points marked with a
is arbitrary small, but not zero and small as possible from experiences with what I
pencil or line drawn
this is such notion arise both in and as thin as shall call ‘good-enough’
on a paper.
embodiment and symbolism. possible. arithmetic.

8) This illustrate the

5) Expert mathematicians, 7) However, many
difference between a
seeking perfections, moves occupations do not
6) At higher level, theoretical limit related to
from good – enough require the formal notion
this can lead to the the need to think coherently
arithmetic to the theoretical of limit, only a firm grasp
formal limit concept. with good – enough
mathematics of real numbers of good – enough
arithmetic in applications
to obtain perfect arithmetic's. arithmetic and the ability
and the formal limit as
to model problems, and
given by the formal
calculate solutions to the
definition in mathematical
require accuracy.
analysis.
 3.1) MATHEMATICAL CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE REAL
NUMBERS
The concept of real number   Cantor’s method began with a Cantor’s idea is essentially Cantor’s idea was to define
was given a formal particular type of sequence, of allows to say equivalence a real number to be given by a
construction in different rational numbers introduced by Cauchy sequences have the Cauchy sequence of rational
ways by Cantor & Dedekind Cauchy, where the terms of a sequence same limit without needing to numbers, where to equivalent
‘get close to each other’ calculate the limit itself. sequence defined the same real
numbers.
Dedekind’s method inspired by Dedekind defined an addition for Once the number line is seen To be able to build new level
Cantor, envisaged the rational cuts by adding the elements in the to be ‘complete’, with both of mathematical
numbers on the line being cut into two lower sets together and those rational and irrational, the sophistication, it is need to
disjoint sets, L and U in such a way in the upper sets together to give scene is set for rigorous introduce the formal notion
that every rational in L is smaller than the sum as a new cut. approach to calculus of limit.
every rational in U

3.2) INTRODUCTION THE LIMIT

  CONCEPT These two approach are
The formal definition The constructions of the
related to a natural
of the limit concept real numbers formulated
approach building on
states that a by Cantor and Dedekind
the concept image and a
sequences ,,…, tend to are based on visual The grounded theory data formal approach
a limit a,(which is fixed   imagery and experience led to categories that
Given any ɛ > 0, building formal
) if the following of operating with distinguished whether the
there exists a theorems based on the
condition is satisfied: numbers. student constructed the
whole number N formal definition.
concept of limit by giving
such that
meaning or extracting
n > N implies ||< ɛ meaning.
 4.1) A NATURAL APPROACH BLENDING EMBODIMENT AND
  SYMBOLISM
Student Chris write down the definition of
 However, the thrust of his dynamic argument remained valid and allowed him to
convergence, he drew a picture and imagined the
build up the form definition from his embodied imagery.
dynamic process as the sequence () of terms tended
to the limit L
 For instanced he believed that a formal proof must include all the logical steps to
build from the given assumption.

 Chris’s approach developed a rich blend of embodiment, symbolism and formalism

where formal ideas were supported by embodiment imagery and fluent symbolic
operations.

4.2) A FORMAL APPROACH BASED ON DEFINITIONAND

PROOF
 
 Student Ross coped the definition by repetition and memorizing
 He thought very carefully about the idea of convergence and realized that for certain values of , some sequence would require much larger
values of N than others, and so one could talk about some sequence converging slowly than others
 In his responses, he used dynamic metaphorical language in which ‘n gets larger than N’, ‘ is going to get closer to L’, ‘the difference
between them is going to come small’, ‘the gap between them is going to be smaller’
 He used functional embodiment of the dynamic changes in the process of tending to a limit, so thus he built on the formal definition and
suppressed his concerns over the problematic nature of his visual interpretation of the limit concept
 He uses logical symbolism to represent the definition in a compact form and manipulates it easily and logically while also thinking about
the limit process as a functional embodiment as the terms get as close as desired to the limiting value
 4.3) A PROBLEMATIC
EMBODIED ROUTE
 Colin based his idea of convergence on the
embodiment movement along a descending
curve that he drew and described in
dynamic terms (figure 10.9)
 As the course progressed, he sensed the
conflict between his embodied imagery and
the formalism.
 For instance, his dynamic imagery
suggested that 0.999… (zero point nine
repeating) gets ‘closer and closer’ to 1
without reaching it, but the formal
definition tells him that the limit is 1 and
problematic aspects is remained .
4.4) A PROBLEMATIC
SYMBOLISM ROUTE THAT IS
ESSENTIALLY PROCEDURAL
 Student Rolf built on his symbolic
experience with algebra and arithmetic to
interpret the definition of convergence as a
calculation.
 He was able to use computational
procedural approach to deal with specific
cases where he was given an explicit for the
term and a numerical value of ɛ to work
with.
 However he could not understand what it
meant to say that a sequence does not tend
to a limit L.
 He sensed how limits worked dynamically
and could verify the limit definition by a
calculation if had the necessary
information, but he did not grasp how to
reason with the formal definition in formal
proofs.
4.5) CLASSIFYING ROUTES TO
FORMAL MATHEMATICAL
THINKING
 Chris build by extracting meaning from visual
thought experiments and blended his embodiment
with quantified symbolism to succeed in
developing formal proof.
 Ross took a fundamentally formal approach,
extracting meaning from the definition by
repeating it and working through the proof.
 Colin attempted to build his idea of a limit by
extracting meaning from embodied imagery but
was unable to make sense of the multiple
quantifier.
 Rolf was classified as ‘extracting meaning’ from
the definition but was unable to cope with the
quantifiers.
 5) COMPARISON OF THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
Natural : giving an intuitive description and using it to lead to formal proof.
Three
Formal : where students had little initial intuition but could logically justify their proof.
categories
Procedural : where students learn the proofs given them by the professor
by rote without being able to provide any formal justification.

Logico – Structural Style : when he guided the students into constructing a

Teaching sequence of deductions to prove a theorem.
style
Procedural style : when he writing the proof down in the left column and using the
right column to work out details such as routine manipulation of symbols

Semantic style : when he drawing pictures and introducing ideas visually,

essentially building from embodiment to formal proof

Figure 10.12 : Bruner’s Three Modes

Lara Alcock and Adrian
Simpson uses grounded theory
to study two parallel analysis
courses which is gave standard
lectures and the other used
cooperative learning based on the
book Number & Function By
Robert Burn
Later, Lara Alcock and Keith And The Three Worlds Of
Weber collaborated to produce Mathematics
a two – part analysis of the
development of proof
categorized as ‘semantic’ and
‘syntactic’.
Figure 10.11 : A Two By Two Analysis
Of The Growth Of Mathematical
Thinking And Proof
 5.1) REVIEWING THE DATA IN TERMS OF NATURAL AND
FORMAL  Our concept images are based on our previous experience, including both mental pictures and symbolic
processes.
 Natural thinking builds from natural experience using thought experiments and symbolic operations.
 Formal thinking arises from choosing quantified axioms and definitions selected to specify a particular
formal situations, constructing a sequence of theorems by formal deduction from the axioms, definitions
and previously proven theorems.
 Emotional aspects enter the mix, as individual with confidence in their ability to face new ideas may
build either naturally from their previous experience or formally in new axiomatic formal framework

6) THE BIGGER
 PICTURE
Natural proof builds on concept imagery involving embodiment and symbolism which may build on
embodiment, symbolism or a blend of the two.
 A default form of proof through a procedural development that essentially builds on rote – learning proofs
for reproduction in examinations
 The vertical arrows representing the observation that proofs often remain in the theoretical world of natural
embodiment and symbolism without shifting to the formal world of set – theoretic definition and proof.
 Formal proof become essential to ensure (as best we can) that the proof that we present are not dependent
on hidden assumption that may later become problematic.
Figure 10.14 : The development of

THANK YOU
proof in embodiment, symbolism and
formalism.