# Mathematicians writing for mathematicians

- 128 Downloads

## Abstract

We present a case study of how mathematicians write for mathematicians. We have conducted interviews with two research mathematicians, the talented PhD student Adam and his experienced supervisor Thomas, about a research paper they wrote together. Over the course of 2 years, Adam and Thomas revised Adam’s very detailed first draft. At the beginning of this collaboration, Adam was very knowledgeable about the subject of the paper and had good presentational skills but, as a new PhD student, did not yet have experience writing research papers for mathematicians. Thus, one main purpose of revising the paper was to make it take into account the intended audience. For this reason, the changes made to the initial draft and the authors’ purpose in making them provide a window for viewing how mathematicians write for mathematicians. We examined how their paper attracts the interest of the reader and prepares their proofs for validation by the reader. Among other findings, we found that their paper prepares the proofs for two types of validation that the reader can easily switch between.

## Keywords

Mathematical publication Mathematical audience Mathematical argument The nature of proof Contextualization## Notes

### Acknowledgements

We are deeply indebted to Adam and Thomas for letting us into their space of collaboration and supervision. We have presented our research in local groups and at the Oxford conference, and we are very grateful for the feedback and discussion, we have received, in particular from Alan Bundy and from colleagues. We are also very grateful for the challenging and constructive feedback we received from two anonymous referees. Part of the research for this paper was conducted while the first author was a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. At Aarhus University, she is supported by K. Brad Wray’s Grant, AUFF-E-2017-FLS-7-3.

### Compliance with ethical standards

### Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

## References

- Aberdein, A., & Dove, I. J. (Eds.). (2013).
*The argument of mathematics*. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar - Andersen, L. E. (2018). Acceptable gaps in mathematical proofs.
*Synthese*. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1778-8.Google Scholar - Dahn, B. I. (1998). Robbins algebras are Boolean: A revision of McCune’s computer-generated solution of Robbins problem.
*Journal of Algebra,**208*(2), 526–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Dexter, L. A. (1970/2006).
*Elite and specialized interviewing*. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar - Dufour, M. (2013). Arguing around mathematical proofs. In A. Aberdein & I. J. Dove (Eds.),
*The argument of mathematics*(pp. 61–76). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Fallis, D. (2003). Intentional gaps in mathematical proofs.
*Synthese,**134,*45–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hersh, R. (1979). Some proposals for reviving the philosophy of mathematics.
*Advances in Mathematics,**31,*31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hilbert, D. (1925/1967). On the infinite. In J. Heijenoort (Ed.),
*From Frege to Gödel: A source book in mathematical logic, 1879*–*1931*(pp. 369-392). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar - Inglis, M., & Alcock, L. (2012). Expert and novice approaches to reading mathematical proofs.
*Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,**43,*358–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Johansen, M. W., & Misfeldt, M. (2016). An empirical approach to the mathematical values of problem choice and argumentation. In B. Larvor (Ed.),
*Mathematical cultures: The London meetings 2012–2014*(pp. 259–269). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar - Johnson, R. H. (2000).
*Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument*. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar - Krabbe, E. C. W. (2013 [1997]). Arguments, proofs, and dialogues. In A. Aberdein & I. J. Dove (Eds.),
*The argument of mathematics*(pp. 31–45). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar - Krabbe, E. C. W. (2013 [2008]). Strategic maneuvering in mathematical proofs. In A. Aberdein & I. J. Dove (Eds.),
*The argument of mathematics*(pp. 181–193). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar - Lakatos, I. (1976).
*Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery*. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Manders, K. (2008). The Euclidean diagram. In P. Mancosu (Ed.),
*The philosophy of mathematical practice*(pp. 80–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Misfeldt, M., & Johansen, M. W. (2015). Research mathematicians’ practices in selecting mathematical problems.
*Educational Studies in Mathematics,**89,*357–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Olson, R. (2015).
*Houston, we have a narrative: Why science needs story*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Paseau, A. C. (2016). What’s the point of complete rigour?
*Mind,**125,*177–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969).
*The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation*. Notre Dame: The University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar - Rav, Y. (2007). A critique of a formalist-mechanist version of the justification of arguments in mathematicians’ proof practices.
*Philosophia Mathematica,**15,*291–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Thurston, W. P. (1994). On proof and progress in mathematics.
*Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society,**30,*161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar