Author
Abstract
Ever since the very beginning of ancient philosophy, from Pythagoras to Plato, we know that the world is made up of numbers and figures. Greek mathematicians used drawings as a natural tool for proofing their theories, as the works of Archimedes and Euclid clearly show. Actually, the ruler-and-compass constructions are the most ancient examples of a perfectly well designed formal language, whose power is equivalent to up to second-degree equations. Drawings often provide wordless proofs that everybody can easily see: for instance, Pythagoras’ theorem and the statement that the sum of odd numbers in increasing order is a perfect square can be proved through a self-explaining drawing. The invention of symbolic algebra in the early seventeenth century, led mathematicians to a more abstract approach to mathematics. These tools are indeed very powerful, and they often need only a calculating capability instead of a deep understanding of the problems. However, especially in the nineteenth century, an analytical approach seemed to be safer than a geometrical one, and the drawing as a means was excluded from most books of mathematics, which had a negative impact on learning. On the other hand, functional analysis introduced a geometrical language enabling to describe many abstract concepts. Nowadays students have a very poor geometrical insight, the main fault for which lies in the scholastic institutions. Most of them cannot comprehend the large amount of information that a drawing contains, in spite of the existence of a great variety of geometrical software packages designed to construct and dynamically modify figures in order to verify guesses about their properties (to be eventually proved by a formal demonstration, of course). This naturally affects all the branches of knowledge, as mathematics is ubiquitous. What can we do in order to improve their skills?
Suggested Citation
Claudio Citrini, 2015.
"The Role of Geometry in Reasoning and Teaching,"
Springer Books, in: Luigi Cocchiarella (ed.), The Visual Language of Technique, edition 127, pages 77-91,
Springer.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-3-319-05326-4_8
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-05326-4_8
Download full text from publisher
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
options:
1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's
web page
whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a
for a similarly titled item that would be
available.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-3-319-05326-4_8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.