Educational Studies in Mathematics

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 277–289 | Cite as

Generic examples: Seeing the general in the particular

  • John Mason
  • David Pimm
Article

Abstract

This paper explores some of the ambiguities inherent in the notions of generality and genericity, drawing parallels between natural language and mathematics, and thereby obliquely attacking the entrenched view that mathematics is unambiguous. Alternative ways of construing 2N, for example, suggest approaches to some of the difficulties which students find with an algebraic representation of generality. Examples are given to show that confusion of levels is widespread throughout mathematics, but that the very confusion is a source of richness of meaning.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adda, J.: 1982, ‘Difficulties with mathematical symbolism: synonymy and homonymy’, Visible Language 16(3), 205–214.Google Scholar
  2. Booth, L.: 1981, ‘Strategies and errors in generalised arithmetic’, Proceedings of the Fifth PME Conference, Grenoble.Google Scholar
  3. Booth, L.: 1984, ‘Misconceptions in algebra’, Journal of Structural Learning, in press.Google Scholar
  4. Courant, R.: ‘Reminiscences from Hilbert's Göttingen’, The Mathematical Intelligencer 3(4), 154–164.Google Scholar
  5. Fowler, D. H.: 1973, Introducing Real Analysis, Transworld, London.Google Scholar
  6. Hart, K. (ed.): 1981, Children's Understanding of Mathematics: 11–16, John Murray, London.Google Scholar
  7. Hawkins, J. A.: 1978, Definiteness and Indefiniteness, Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
  8. Lakatos, I.: 1976, Proofs and Refutations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. MacHale, D.: 1980, ‘The predictability of counterexamples’, American Mathematical Monthly 87(9), 752.Google Scholar
  10. Mason, J. et al.: 1983, Routes to Algebra, Open University, Milton Keynes, (preliminary draft).Google Scholar
  11. Michener, E.: 1978, ‘Understanding understanding mathematics’, Cognitive Science 2, 361–383.Google Scholar
  12. Neugebauer, O.: 1969, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, Dover, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Pimm, D.: 1981, ‘Metaphor and analogy in mathematics’, For the Learning of Mathematics 1(3), 47–50.Google Scholar
  14. Pimm, D.: 1982, ‘Why the history and philosophy of mathematics should not be related X’, For the Learning of Mathematics 3(1), 12–15.Google Scholar
  15. Pimm, D.: 1983, ‘Mathematics, students and ulterior motives’, Proceedings of the Seventh PME Conference, Israel.Google Scholar
  16. Room, A.: 1982, A Dictionary of Trade Name Origins, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  17. Stewart, I. and Tall, D.: 1979, ‘Calculations and canonical elements’, Mathematics in School 8(4), 2–6.Google Scholar
  18. Swetz, F. J. and Kao, T. I.: 1977, Was Pythagoras Chinese?, Pennsylvania State University Press, London.Google Scholar
  19. Tall, D.: 1977, ‘Cognitive conflict and the learning of mathematics’, Proceedings of the First IGPME Conference, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  20. Thornton, E. C. B.: 1970, ‘Any must go’, in Mathematical Reflections, Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  21. Vinner, S.: 1983, ‘The notion of proof-some aspects of students' views at the senior high level’, Proceedings of the Seventh PME Conference, Israel.Google Scholar
  22. Wittgenstein, L.: 1967, Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics, B. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Mason
    • 1
  • David Pimm
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Maths EducationThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesEngland

Personalised recommendations