2 ms·
I strongly disagree. While rigorous mathematical proof (logic) is a big part of modern mathematical research output, it is an impenetrable barrier to learning
by mayd 3y ago
I strongly disagree. While rigorous mathematical proof (logic) is a big part of modern mathematical research output, it is an impenetrable barrier to learning for most students, including maths students. I doubt any mathematician ever learned their subject by mainly reading proofs. And I say that as someone who secretly enjoys reading and working through proofs of theorems. Understanding mathematics demands developing strong intuition of ideas before attempting their
logical justification. That rigour and intuition in mathematics education are largely contradictory goals is widely acknowledged by maths teachers; 3BlueBrown, for example, has often mentioned this duality in his videos. It was only in latter part of the twentieth century that the idea of abandoning intuition in teaching mathematics was seriously attempted, by the Bourbakists I believe, and was embraced for a while, before fading away.
- nyssos 3y ago> I doubt any mathematician ever learned their subject by mainly reading proofs. And I say that as someone who secretly enjoys reading and working through proofs of theorems. Understanding mathematics demands developing strong intuition of ideas before attempting their logical justification. This is half right: you don't learn math by reading proofs, you learn it by writing proofs. Developing strong intuition without proofs is possible (albeit difficult) for applied topics, but not viable at all for pure math.