DOCSLIB.ORG

Today's Topics Proof Terminology • Theorem • Axioms, Postulates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Today’s topics Proof Terminology • Proof techniques • Theorem – Indirect, by cases, and direct – Rules of logical inference – A statement that has been proven to be true. – Correct & fallacious proofs • Axioms, postulates, hypotheses, premises – Assumptions (often unproven) defining the • Reading: Section 1.5 structures about which we are reasoning. • Upcoming – Sets and Functions • Rules of inference – Patterns of logically valid deductions from hypotheses to conclusions. CompSci 102 © Michael Frank CompSci 102 © Michael Frank 4.1 4.2 More Proof Terminology Inference Rules - General Form • Lemma - A minor theorem used as a stepping- • An Inference Rule is stone to proving a major theorem. – A pattern establishing that if we know that a • Corollary - A minor theorem proved as an easy set of antecedent statements of certain forms consequence of a major theorem. are all true, then we can validly deduce that a • Conjecture - A statement whose truth value has certain related consequent statement is true. not been proven. (A conjecture may be widely believed to be true, regardless.) • antecedent 1 • Theory – The set of all theorems that can be antecedent 2 … proven from a given set of axioms. ! consequent “!” means “therefore” CompSci 102 © Michael Frank CompSci 102 © Michael Frank 4.3 4.4 Inference Rules & Implications Some Inference Rules • Each valid logical inference rule • p Rule of Addition corresponds to an implication that is a ! p$q tautology. • p"q Rule of Simplification • antecedent 1 Inference rule • antecedent 1 Inference rule ! p antecedent 2 … ! consequent • p Rule of Conjunction • Corresponding tautology: q p q ((ante. 1) " (ante. 2) " …) # consequent ! p"q CompSci 102 © Michael Frank CompSci 102 © Michael Frank 4.5 4.6 Modus Ponens & Tollens Syllogism Inference Rules “the mode of • p Rule of modus ponens affirming” • p#q Rule of hypothetical p#q (a.k.a. law of detachment) q#r syllogism !q !p#r • ¬q • p $ q Rule of disjunctive p#q Rule of modus tollens ¬p syllogism !¬p “the mode of denying” ! q Aristotle CompSci 102 © Michael Frank CompSci 102 © Michael Frank (ca. 384-322 B.C.) 4.7 4.8 Formal Proofs Formal Proof Example • A formal proof of a conclusion C, given • Suppose we have the following premises: “It is not sunny and it is cold.” premises p1, p2,…,pn consists of a sequence “We will swim only if it is sunny.” of steps, each of which applies some “If we do not swim, then we will canoe.” inference rule to premises or previously- “If we canoe, then we will be home early.” proven statements (antecedents) to yield a • Given these premises, prove the theorem “We will be home early” using inference rules. new true statement (the consequent). • A proof demonstrates that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. CompSci 102 © Michael Frank CompSci 102 © Michael Frank 4.9 4.10 Inference Rules for Quantifiers Common Fallacies • %x P(x) • A fallacy is an inference rule or other proof !P(o) (substitute any specific object o) method that is not logically valid. • P(g) (for g a general element of u.d.) – A fallacy may yield a false conclusion! !%x P(x) • Fallacy of affirming the conclusion: • &x P(x) – “p#q is true, and q is true, so p must be true.” !P(c) (substitute a new constant c) (No, because F#T is true.) • P(o) (substitute any extant object o) • Fallacy of denying the hypothesis: x P(x) !& – “p#q is true, and p is false, so q must be false.” (No, again because F#T is true.) CompSci 102 © Michael Frank CompSci 102 © Michael Frank 4.11 4.12 Circular Reasoning A Correct Proof • The fallacy of (explicitly or implicitly) assuming the very We know that n must be either odd or even. statement you are trying to prove in the course of its 2 proof. Example: If n were odd, then n would be odd, since an • Prove that an integer n is even, if n2 is even. odd number times an odd number is always 2 • Attempted proof: “Assume n2 is even. Then n2=2k for an odd number. Since n is even, it is not some integer k. Dividing both sides by n gives n = (2k)/n odd, since no even number is also an odd = 2(k/n). So there is an integer j (namely k/n) such that number. Thus, by modus tollens, n is not odd n=2j. Therefore n is even.” number. Thus, by modus tollens, n is not odd – Circular reasoning is used in this proof. Where? either. Thus, by disjunctive syllogism, n must be even. ! CompSci 102 © Michael Frank CompSci 102 © Michael Frank 4.13 4.14 A More Verbose Version Proof Methods for Implications Uses some number theory we haven’t defined yet. Suppose n2 is even !2||n2 ! n2 mod 2 = 0. Of course n mod For proving implications p#q, we have: 2 is either 0 or 1. If it’s 1, then n'1 (mod 2), so n2'1 (mod 2), using the theorem that if a'b (mod m) and c'd (mod m) • Direct proof: Assume p is true, and prove q. 2 then ac'bd (mod m), with a=c=n and b=d=1. Now n '1 • Indirect proof: Assume ¬q, and prove ¬p. (mod 2) implies that n2 mod 2 = 1. So by the hypothetical syllogism rule, (n mod 2 = 1) implies (n2 mod 2 = 1). Since • Vacuous proof: Prove ¬p by itself. we know n2 mod 2 = 0 ( 1, by modus tollens we know that n mod 2 ( 1. So by disjunctive syllogism we have that n mod • Trivial proof: Prove q by itself. 2 = 0 !2|n ! n is even. • Proof by cases: Show p#(a $ b), and (a#q) and (b#q). CompSci 102 © Michael Frank CompSci 102 © Michael Frank 4.15 4.16 Direct Proof Example Indirect Proof Example • Definition: An integer n is called odd iff n=2k+1 • Theorem: (For all integers n) for some integer k; n is even iff n=2k for some k. If 3n+2 is odd, then n is odd. • Theorem: Every integer is either odd or even. • Proof: Suppose that the conclusion is false, i.e., that n is – This can be proven from even simpler axioms. even. Then n=2k for some integer k. Then 3n+2 = • Theorem: (For all numbers n) If n is an odd 3(2k)+2 = 6k+2 = 2(3k+1). Thus 3n+2 is even, because it integer, then n2 is an odd integer. equals 2j for integer j = 3k+1. So 3n+2 is not odd. We • Proof: If n is odd, then n = 2k+1 for some have shown that ¬(n is odd)"¬(3n+2 is odd), thus its integer k. Thus, n2 = (2k+1)2 = 4k2 + 4k + 1 = contra-positive (3n+2 is odd) " (n is odd) is also true. # 2(2k2 + 2k) + 1. Therefore n2 is of the form 2j + 1 (with j the integer 2k2 + 2k), thus n2 is odd. # CompSci 102 © Michael Frank CompSci 102 © Michael Frank 4.17 4.18 Vacuous Proof Example Trivial Proof Example • Theorem: (For all n) If n is both odd and • Theorem: (For integers n) If n is the sum even, then n2 = n + n. of two prime numbers, then either n is odd • Proof: The statement “n is both odd and or n is even. even” is necessarily false, since no number • Proof: Any integer n is either odd or even. can be both odd and even. So, the theorem So the conclusion of the implication is true is vacuously true. # regardless of the truth of the antecedent. Thus the implication is true trivially. # CompSci 102 © Michael Frank CompSci 102 © Michael Frank 4.19 4.20 Proof by Contradiction Proof by Contradiction Example • A method for proving p. 2 • Theorem: 2 is irrational. 1/2 • Assume ¬p, and prove both q and ¬q for – Proof: Assume 2 were rational. This means there are integers i,j with no common divisors some proposition q. (Can be anything!) such that 21/2 = i/j. Squaring both sides, 2 = • Thus ¬p# (q " ¬q) i2/j2, so 2j2 = i2. So i2 is even; thus i is even. Let i=2k. So 2j2 = (2k)2 = 4k2. Dividing both • (q " ¬q) is a trivial contradiction, equal to F sides by 2, j2 = 2k2. Thus j2 is even, so j is • Thus ¬p#F, which is only true if ¬p=F even. But then i and j have a common divisor, namely 2, so we have a contradiction. # • Thus p is true. CompSci 102 © Michael Frank CompSci 102 © Michael Frank 4.21 4.22 Review: Proof Methods So Far Proving Existentials • Direct, indirect, vacuous, and trivial proofs • A proof of a statement of the form &x P(x) of statements of the form p#q. is called an existence proof. • Proof by contradiction of any statements. • If the proof demonstrates how to actually find or construct a specific element a such • Next: Constructive and nonconstructive that P(a) is true, then it is a constructive existence proofs. proof. • Otherwise, it is nonconstructive. CompSci 102 © Michael Frank CompSci 102 © Michael Frank 4.23 4.24 Another Constructive Constructive Existence Proof Existence Proof • Theorem: There exists a positive integer n • Theorem: For any integer n>0, there that is the sum of two perfect cubes in two exists a sequence of n consecutive different ways: composite integers. – equal to j3 + k3 and l3 + m3 where j, k, l, m are • Same statement in predicate logic: positive integers, and {j,k} $ {l,m} %n>0 &x %i (1)i)n)#(x+i is composite) • Proof: Consider n = 1729, j = 9, k = 10, • Proof ? l = 1, m = 12.
Recommended publications
  • Scalar Curvature and Geometrization Conjectures for 3-Manifolds

    Scalar Curvature and Geometrization Conjectures for 3-Manifolds

    Comparison Geometry MSRI Publications Volume 30, 1997 Scalar Curvature and Geometrization Conjectures for 3-Manifolds MICHAEL T. ANDERSON Abstract. We first summarize very briefly the topology of 3-manifolds and the approach of Thurston towards their geometrization. After dis- cussing some general properties of curvature functionals on the space of metrics, we formulate and discuss three conjectures that imply Thurston’s Geometrization Conjecture for closed oriented 3-manifolds. The final two sections present evidence for the validity of these conjectures and outline an approach toward their proof. Introduction In the late seventies and early eighties Thurston proved a number of very re- markable results on the existence of geometric structures on 3-manifolds. These results provide strong support for the profound conjecture, formulated by Thur- ston, that every compact 3-manifold admits a canonical decomposition into do- mains, each of which has a canonical geometric structure. For simplicity, we state the conjecture only for closed, oriented 3-manifolds. Geometrization Conjecture [Thurston 1982]. Let M be a closed , oriented, 2 prime 3-manifold. Then there is a finite collection of disjoint, embedded tori Ti 2 in M, such that each component of the complement M r Ti admits a geometric structure, i.e., a complete, locally homogeneous RiemannianS metric. A more detailed description of the conjecture and the terminology will be given in Section 1. A complete Riemannian manifold N is locally homogeneous if the universal cover N˜ is a complete homogenous manifold, that is, if the isometry group Isom N˜ acts transitively on N˜. It follows that N is isometric to N=˜ Γ, where Γ is a discrete subgroup of Isom N˜, which acts freely and properly discontinuously on N˜.
  • Generalized Riemann Hypothesis Léo Agélas

    Generalized Riemann Hypothesis Léo Agélas

    Generalized Riemann Hypothesis Léo Agélas To cite this version: Léo Agélas. Generalized Riemann Hypothesis. 2019. hal-00747680v3 HAL Id: hal-00747680 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00747680v3 Preprint submitted on 29 May 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Generalized Riemann Hypothesis L´eoAg´elas Department of Mathematics, IFP Energies nouvelles, 1-4, avenue de Bois-Pr´eau,F-92852 Rueil-Malmaison, France Abstract (Generalized) Riemann Hypothesis (that all non-trivial zeros of the (Dirichlet L-function) zeta function have real part one-half) is arguably the most impor- tant unsolved problem in contemporary mathematics due to its deep relation to the fundamental building blocks of the integers, the primes. The proof of the Riemann hypothesis will immediately verify a slew of dependent theorems (Borwien et al.(2008), Sabbagh(2002)). In this paper, we give a proof of Gen- eralized Riemann Hypothesis which implies the proof of Riemann Hypothesis and Goldbach's weak conjecture (also known as the odd Goldbach conjecture) one of the oldest and best-known unsolved problems in number theory. 1. Introduction The Riemann hypothesis is one of the most important conjectures in math- ematics.
  • 6.5 the Recursion Theorem

    6.5 the Recursion Theorem

    6.5. THE RECURSION THEOREM 417 6.5 The Recursion Theorem The recursion Theorem, due to Kleene, is a fundamental result in recursion theory. Theorem 6.5.1 (Recursion Theorem, Version 1 )Letϕ0,ϕ1,... be any ac- ceptable indexing of the partial recursive functions. For every total recursive function f, there is some n such that ϕn = ϕf(n). The recursion Theorem can be strengthened as follows. Theorem 6.5.2 (Recursion Theorem, Version 2 )Letϕ0,ϕ1,... be any ac- ceptable indexing of the partial recursive functions. There is a total recursive function h such that for all x ∈ N,ifϕx is total, then ϕϕx(h(x)) = ϕh(x). 418 CHAPTER 6. ELEMENTARY RECURSIVE FUNCTION THEORY A third version of the recursion Theorem is given below. Theorem 6.5.3 (Recursion Theorem, Version 3 ) For all n ≥ 1, there is a total recursive function h of n +1 arguments, such that for all x ∈ N,ifϕx is a total recursive function of n +1arguments, then ϕϕx(h(x,x1,...,xn),x1,...,xn) = ϕh(x,x1,...,xn), for all x1,...,xn ∈ N. As a first application of the recursion theorem, we can show that there is an index n such that ϕn is the constant function with output n. Loosely speaking, ϕn prints its own name. Let f be the recursive function such that f(x, y)=x for all x, y ∈ N. 6.5. THE RECURSION THEOREM 419 By the s-m-n Theorem, there is a recursive function g such that ϕg(x)(y)=f(x, y)=x for all x, y ∈ N.
  • April 22 7.1 Recursion Theorem

    April 22 7.1 Recursion Theorem

    CSE 431 Theory of Computation Spring 2014 Lecture 7: April 22 Lecturer: James R. Lee Scribe: Eric Lei Disclaimer: These notes have not been subjected to the usual scrutiny reserved for formal publications. They may be distributed outside this class only with the permission of the Instructor. An interesting question about Turing machines is whether they can reproduce themselves. A Turing machine cannot be be defined in terms of itself, but can it still somehow print its own source code? The answer to this question is yes, as we will see in the recursion theorem. Afterward we will see some applications of this result. 7.1 Recursion Theorem Our end goal is to have a Turing machine that prints its own source code and operates on it. Last lecture we proved the existence of a Turing machine called SELF that ignores its input and prints its source code. We construct a similar proof for the recursion theorem. We will also need the following lemma proved last lecture. ∗ ∗ Lemma 7.1 There exists a computable function q :Σ ! Σ such that q(w) = hPwi, where Pw is a Turing machine that prints w and hats. Theorem 7.2 (Recursion theorem) Let T be a Turing machine that computes a function t :Σ∗ × Σ∗ ! Σ∗. There exists a Turing machine R that computes a function r :Σ∗ ! Σ∗, where for every w, r(w) = t(hRi; w): The theorem says that for an arbitrary computable function t, there is a Turing machine R that computes t on hRi and some input. Proof: We construct a Turing Machine R in three parts, A, B, and T , where T is given by the statement of the theorem.
  • Intuitionism on Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem

    Intuitionism on Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem

    The Yale Undergraduate Research Journal Volume 2 Issue 1 Spring 2021 Article 31 2021 Incomplete? Or Indefinite? Intuitionism on Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem Quinn Crawford Yale University Follow this and additional works at: https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/yurj Part of the Mathematics Commons, and the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Crawford, Quinn (2021) "Incomplete? Or Indefinite? Intuitionism on Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem," The Yale Undergraduate Research Journal: Vol. 2 : Iss. 1 , Article 31. Available at: https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/yurj/vol2/iss1/31 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by EliScholar – A Digital Platform for Scholarly Publishing at Yale. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Yale Undergraduate Research Journal by an authorized editor of EliScholar – A Digital Platform for Scholarly Publishing at Yale. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Incomplete? Or Indefinite? Intuitionism on Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem Cover Page Footnote Written for Professor Sun-Joo Shin’s course PHIL 437: Philosophy of Mathematics. This article is available in The Yale Undergraduate Research Journal: https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/yurj/vol2/iss1/ 31 Crawford: Intuitionism on Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem Crawford | Philosophy Incomplete? Or Indefinite? Intuitionism on Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem By Quinn Crawford1 1Department of Philosophy, Yale University ABSTRACT This paper analyzes two natural-looking arguments that seek to leverage Gödel’s first incompleteness theo- rem for and against intuitionism, concluding in both cases that the argument is unsound because it equivo- cates on the meaning of “proof,” which differs between formalism and intuitionism.
  • Towards the Poincaré Conjecture and the Classification of 3-Manifolds John Milnor

    Towards the Poincaré Conjecture and the Classification of 3-Manifolds John Milnor

    Towards the Poincaré Conjecture and the Classification of 3-Manifolds John Milnor he Poincaré Conjecture was posed ninety- space SO(3)/I60 . Here SO(3) is the group of rota- nine years ago and may possibly have tions of Euclidean 3-space, and I60 is the subgroup been proved in the last few months. This consisting of those rotations which carry a regu- note will be an account of some of the lar icosahedron or dodecahedron onto itself (the Tmajor results over the past hundred unique simple group of order 60). This manifold years which have paved the way towards a proof has the homology of the 3-sphere, but its funda- and towards the even more ambitious project of mental group π1(SO(3)/I60) is a perfect group of classifying all compact 3-dimensional manifolds. order 120. He concluded the discussion by asking, The final paragraph provides a brief description of again translated into modern language: the latest developments, due to Grigory Perelman. A more serious discussion of Perelman’s work If a closed 3-dimensional manifold has will be provided in a subsequent note by Michael trivial fundamental group, must it be Anderson. homeomorphic to the 3-sphere? The conjecture that this is indeed the case has Poincaré’s Question come to be known as the Poincaré Conjecture. It At the very beginning of the twentieth century, has turned out to be an extraordinarily difficult Henri Poincaré (1854–1912) made an unwise claim, question, much harder than the corresponding which can be stated in modern language as follows: question in dimension five or more,2 and is a If a closed 3-dimensional manifold has key stumbling block in the effort to classify the homology of the sphere S3 , then it 3-dimensional manifolds.
  • Section 2.1: Proof Techniques

    Section 2.1: Proof Techniques

    Section 2.1: Proof Techniques January 25, 2021 Abstract Sometimes we see patterns in nature and wonder if they hold in general: in such situations we are demonstrating the appli- cation of inductive reasoning to propose a conjecture, which may become a theorem which we attempt to prove via deduc- tive reasoning. From our work in Chapter 1, we conceive of a theorem as an argument of the form P → Q, whose validity we seek to demonstrate. Example: A student was doing a proof and suddenly specu- lated “Couldn’t we just say (A → (B → C)) ∧ B → (A → C)?” Can she? It’s a theorem – either we prove it, or we provide a counterexample. This section outlines a variety of proof techniques, including direct proofs, proofs by contraposition, proofs by contradiction, proofs by exhaustion, and proofs by dumb luck or genius! You have already seen each of these in Chapter 1 (with the exception of “dumb luck or genius”, perhaps). 1 Theorems and Informal Proofs The theorem-forming process is one in which we • make observations about nature, about a system under study, etc.; • discover patterns which appear to hold in general; • state the rule; and then • attempt to prove it (or disprove it). This process is formalized in the following definitions: • inductive reasoning - drawing a conclusion based on experi- ence, which one might state as a conjecture or theorem; but al- mostalwaysas If(hypotheses)then(conclusion). • deductive reasoning - application of a logic system to investi- gate a proposed conclusion based on hypotheses (hence proving, disproving, or, failing either, holding in limbo the conclusion).
  • Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory

    Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory

    Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory To criticize mathematics for its abstraction is to miss the point entirely. Abstraction is what makes mathematics work. If you concentrate too closely on too limited an application of a mathematical idea, you rob the mathematician of his most important tools: analogy, generality, and simplicity. – Ian Stewart Does God play dice? The mathematics of chaos In mathematics, a proof is a demonstration that, assuming certain axioms, some statement is necessarily true. That is, a proof is a logical argument, not an empir- ical one. One must demonstrate that a proposition is true in all cases before it is considered a theorem of mathematics. An unproven proposition for which there is some sort of empirical evidence is known as a conjecture. Mathematical logic is the framework upon which rigorous proofs are built. It is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstrations. Logicians have analyzed set theory in great details, formulating a collection of axioms that affords a broad enough and strong enough foundation to mathematical reasoning. The standard form of axiomatic set theory is denoted ZFC and it consists of the Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) axioms combined with the axiom of choice (C). Each of the axioms included in this theory expresses a property of sets that is widely accepted by mathematicians. It is unfortunately true that careless use of set theory can lead to contradictions. Avoiding such contradictions was one of the original motivations for the axiomatization of set theory. 1 2 CHAPTER 1. LOGIC AND SET THEORY A rigorous analysis of set theory belongs to the foundations of mathematics and mathematical logic.
  • Theorem Proving in Classical Logic

    Theorem Proving in Classical Logic

    MEng Individual Project Imperial College London Department of Computing Theorem Proving in Classical Logic Supervisor: Dr. Steffen van Bakel Author: David Davies Second Marker: Dr. Nicolas Wu June 16, 2021 Abstract It is well known that functional programming and logic are deeply intertwined. This has led to many systems capable of expressing both propositional and first order logic, that also operate as well-typed programs. What currently ties popular theorem provers together is their basis in intuitionistic logic, where one cannot prove the law of the excluded middle, ‘A A’ – that any proposition is either true or false. In classical logic this notion is provable, and the_: corresponding programs turn out to be those with control operators. In this report, we explore and expand upon the research about calculi that correspond with classical logic; and the problems that occur for those relating to first order logic. To see how these calculi behave in practice, we develop and implement functional languages for propositional and first order logic, expressing classical calculi in the setting of a theorem prover, much like Agda and Coq. In the first order language, users are able to define inductive data and record types; importantly, they are able to write computable programs that have a correspondence with classical propositions. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Steffen van Bakel, my supervisor, for his support throughout this project and helping find a topic of study based on my interests, for which I am incredibly grateful. His insight and advice have been invaluable. I would also like to thank my second marker, Nicolas Wu, for introducing me to the world of dependent types, and suggesting useful resources that have aided me greatly during this report.
  • The Process of Student Cognition in Constructing Mathematical Conjecture

    The Process of Student Cognition in Constructing Mathematical Conjecture

    ISSN 2087-8885 E-ISSN 2407-0610 Journal on Mathematics Education Volume 9, No. 1, January 2018, pp. 15-26 THE PROCESS OF STUDENT COGNITION IN CONSTRUCTING MATHEMATICAL CONJECTURE I Wayan Puja Astawa1, I Ketut Budayasa2, Dwi Juniati2 1Ganesha University of Education, Jalan Udayana 11, Singaraja, Indonesia 2State University of Surabaya, Ketintang, Surabaya, Indonesia Email: [email protected] Abstract This research aims to describe the process of student cognition in constructing mathematical conjecture. Many researchers have studied this process but without giving a detailed explanation of how students understand the information to construct a mathematical conjecture. The researchers focus their analysis on how to construct and prove the conjecture. This article discusses the process of student cognition in constructing mathematical conjecture from the very beginning of the process. The process is studied through qualitative research involving six students from the Mathematics Education Department in the Ganesha University of Education. The process of student cognition in constructing mathematical conjecture is grouped into five different stages. The stages consist of understanding the problem, exploring the problem, formulating conjecture, justifying conjecture, and proving conjecture. In addition, details of the process of the students’ cognition in each stage are also discussed. Keywords: Process of Student Cognition, Mathematical Conjecture, qualitative research Abstrak Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan proses kognisi mahasiswa dalam mengonstruksi konjektur matematika. Beberapa peneliti mengkaji proses-proses ini tanpa menjelaskan bagaimana siswa memahami informasi untuk mengonstruksi konjektur. Para peneliti dalam analisisnya menekankan bagaimana mengonstruksi dan membuktikan konjektur. Artikel ini membahas proses kognisi mahasiswa dalam mengonstruksi konjektur matematika dari tahap paling awal.
  • History of Mathematics

    History of Mathematics

    History of Mathematics James Tattersall, Providence College (Chair) Janet Beery, University of Redlands Robert E. Bradley, Adelphi University V. Frederick Rickey, United States Military Academy Lawrence Shirley, Towson University Introduction. There are many excellent reasons to study the history of mathematics. It helps students develop a deeper understanding of the mathematics they have already studied by seeing how it was developed over time and in various places. It encourages creative and flexible thinking by allowing students to see historical evidence that there are different and perfectly valid ways to view concepts and to carry out computations. Ideally, a History of Mathematics course should be a part of every mathematics major program. A course taught at the sophomore-level allows mathematics students to see the great wealth of mathematics that lies before them and encourages them to continue studying the subject. A one- or two-semester course taught at the senior level can dig deeper into the history of mathematics, incorporating many ideas from the 19th and 20th centuries that could only be approached with difficulty by less prepared students. Such a senior-level course might be a capstone experience taught in a seminar format. It would be wonderful for students, especially those planning to become middle school or high school mathematics teachers, to have the opportunity to take advantage of both options. We also encourage History of Mathematics courses taught to entering students interested in mathematics, perhaps as First Year or Honors Seminars; to general education students at any level; and to junior and senior mathematics majors and minors. Ideally, mathematics history would be incorporated seamlessly into all courses in the undergraduate mathematics curriculum in addition to being addressed in a few courses of the type we have listed.
  • Arxiv:2102.04549V2 [Math.GT] 26 Jun 2021 Ieade Nih Notesrcueo -Aiod.Alteeconj Polyto These and Norm All Thurston to the 3-Manifolds

    Arxiv:2102.04549V2 [Math.GT] 26 Jun 2021 Ieade Nih Notesrcueo -Aiod.Alteeconj Polyto These and Norm All Thurston to the 3-Manifolds

    SURVEY ON L2-INVARIANTS AND 3-MANIFOLDS LUCK,¨ W. Abstract. In this paper give a survey about L2-invariants focusing on 3- manifolds. 0. Introduction The theory of L2-invariants was triggered by Atiyah in his paper on the L2-index theorem [4]. He followed the general principle to consider a classical invariant of a compact manifold and to define its analog for the universal covering taking the action of the fundamental group into account. Its application to (co)homology, Betti numbers and Reidemeister torsion led to the notions of L2-(cohomology), L2-Betti numbers and L2-torsion. Since then L2-invariants were developed much further. They already had and will continue to have striking, surprizing, and deep impact on questions and problems of fields, for some of which one would not expect any relation, e.g., to algebra, differential geometry, global analysis, group theory, topology, transformation groups, and von Neumann algebras. The theory of 3-manifolds has also a quite impressive history culminating in the work of Waldhausen and in particular of Thurston and much later in the proof of the Geometrization Conjecture by Perelman and of the Virtual Fibration Conjecture by Agol. It is amazing how many beautiful, easy to comprehend, and deep theorems, which often represent the best result one can hope for, have been proved for 3- manifolds. The motivating question of this survey paper is: What happens if these two prominent and successful areas meet one another? The answer will be: Something very interesting. In Section 1 we give a brief overview over basics about 3-manifolds, which of course can be skipped by someone who has already some background.