Causes of proof construction failure in proof by contradiction

D. Hamdani, Purwanto, Sukoriyanto, Lathiful Anwar
{"title":"Causes of proof construction failure in proof by contradiction","authors":"D. Hamdani, Purwanto, Sukoriyanto, Lathiful Anwar","doi":"10.22342/jme.v14i3.pp415-448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Failure to deduce false suppositions in proof by contradiction is still considered “more difficult” than proving the conditional to in proof by contraposition. This study aims to identify the types of proof construction failures based on the action steps of proof by contradiction, then offer a framework of construction failure hypothesis specifically used in proof by contradiction. The research data were collected and analyzed from the work of students who have agreed to be research participants, a total of 83 students. The results of the analysis of student work successfully identified four types of failures, namely formulating suppositions, constructing and manipulating suppositions, identifying contradictions, and disproving suppositions. These four types of failures then became the material for the development of the hypothesis framework of a failure to construct proof by contradiction, which consists of 17 hypothesis nodes divided into three main hypotheses, namely: operational (action), affective (emotional), and foundational (logical reasoning). The failure hypothesis framework justifies that the sources of the failure of proof construction in proof by contradiction are understanding of the act of producing a proof by contradiction, emotionality towards the coherence of the construction steps, disproving suppositions, beliefs, use of appropriate definitions-theorems and axioms, and cognitive tension in proof by contradiction; and formal logic of the act of producing a proof by contradiction, as well as differences in the underlying logic with other acts.","PeriodicalId":37090,"journal":{"name":"Journal on Mathematics Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal on Mathematics Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i3.pp415-448","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Mathematics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Failure to deduce false suppositions in proof by contradiction is still considered “more difficult” than proving the conditional to in proof by contraposition. This study aims to identify the types of proof construction failures based on the action steps of proof by contradiction, then offer a framework of construction failure hypothesis specifically used in proof by contradiction. The research data were collected and analyzed from the work of students who have agreed to be research participants, a total of 83 students. The results of the analysis of student work successfully identified four types of failures, namely formulating suppositions, constructing and manipulating suppositions, identifying contradictions, and disproving suppositions. These four types of failures then became the material for the development of the hypothesis framework of a failure to construct proof by contradiction, which consists of 17 hypothesis nodes divided into three main hypotheses, namely: operational (action), affective (emotional), and foundational (logical reasoning). The failure hypothesis framework justifies that the sources of the failure of proof construction in proof by contradiction are understanding of the act of producing a proof by contradiction, emotionality towards the coherence of the construction steps, disproving suppositions, beliefs, use of appropriate definitions-theorems and axioms, and cognitive tension in proof by contradiction; and formal logic of the act of producing a proof by contradiction, as well as differences in the underlying logic with other acts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
矛盾举证中证据构造失效的原因
在反证法中不能推导出错误的假设仍然被认为比在反证法中证明条件命题“更困难”。本研究旨在根据矛盾证明的行动步骤,识别证明建构失效的类型,并提出一个适用于矛盾证明的建构失效假设框架。研究数据是从同意成为研究参与者的学生的工作中收集和分析的,共有83名学生。对学生作业的分析结果成功地识别出四种类型的失误,即制定假设、构建和操纵假设、识别矛盾和反驳假设。然后,这四种类型的失败成为构建矛盾证明失败的假设框架的发展材料,该框架由17个假设节点组成,分为三个主要假设,即:操作(行动),情感(情感)和基础(逻辑推理)。失败假设框架认为,矛盾证明中证明构造失败的根源是对矛盾证明过程的理解、对构造步骤的连贯性的情感、对假设和信念的反驳、对适当定义(定理和公理)的使用以及矛盾证明中的认知张力;和形式逻辑的产生矛盾证明的行为,以及在潜在的逻辑与其他行为的区别。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal on Mathematics Education
Journal on Mathematics Education Mathematics-Mathematics (all)
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
What explains early numeracy achievement: A comparison of South Africa and China Exploring default-interventionist interaction of thinking activity types on probability problem-solving Mathematics learning orientation: Mathematical creative thinking ability or creative disposition? Promoting socioeconomic equity through automatic formative assessment Aligning numeracy task design with SDG goals: Nutrition facts as a context for prospective mathematics teachers' problem posing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1