+44 (0)1509 263171
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||On mathematicians' different standards when evaluating elementary proofs|
|Authors: ||Inglis, Matthew|
Mejia-Ramos, Juan P.
|Issue Date: ||2013|
|Publisher: ||John Wiley & Sons, Inc. © Cognitive Science Society, Inc.|
|Citation: ||INGLIS, M. ... et al., 2013. On mathematicians' different standards when evaluating elementary proofs. Topics in Cognitive Science, 5 (2), pp. 270 - 282.|
|Abstract: ||In this article, we report a study in which 109 research-active mathematicians were asked to judge the validity of a purported proof in undergraduate calculus. Significant results from our study were as follows: (a) there was substantial disagreement among mathematicians regarding whether the argument was a valid proof, (b) applied mathematicians were more likely than pure mathematicians to judge the argument valid, (c) participants who judged the argument invalid were more confident in their judgments than those who judged it valid, and (d) participants who judged the argument valid usually did not change their judgment when presented with a reason raised by other mathematicians for why the proof should be judged invalid. These findings suggest that, contrary to some claims in the literature, there is not a single standard of validity among contemporary mathematicians.|
|Description: ||Closed access. This article was published in the journal, Topics in Cognitive Science [John Wiley & Sons, Inc. © Cognitive Science Society, Inc.] and the definitive version is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tops.12019|
|Version: ||Accepted for publication|
|Publisher Link: ||http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/tops.12019|
|Appears in Collections:||Closed Access (Mathematics Education Centre)|
Files associated with this item:
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.