abstractmath.org
help with abstract math
Produced by Charles Wells. Home Website TOC Website Index
Back to top of Understanding Math chapterLast edited 3/10/2008 10:55:00 AM
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE incomplete
|
I am influenced fairly strongly
by a person’s speaking voice, perhaps more than many people. Like most people, I am also influenced by a
person’s looks and mannerisms. When
Richard Nixon debated Jack Kennedy for the presidential election of 1960, I
heard the first debate on the radio and was mightily impressed by Nixon’s
gorgeous
|
In some situations you may have conflicting information from different sources about a subject. The resulting confusion in your thinking is called cognitive dissonance.
It may happen
that a person suffering cognitive dissonance suppresses one of the ways of understanding in order to resolve
the conflict. For example, at a certain stage in learning English,
you (small child or non-native-English speaker) may learn a rule that the past
tense is made from the present form by adding “ed”. So you say “bringed” instead of “brought” even though you may
have heard people use “brought” many times.
You
have suppressed the evidence in favor of the rule.
Some of the ways cognitive dissonance can affect learning math are discussed here.
We think about math objects using metaphors, as we do with most concepts that are not totally concrete. The metaphors are imperfect, suggesting facts about the objects that may not follow from the definition. This is discussed at length in the section on images and metaphors here.
Many math objects have names that are ordinary
English words. (See names.) So the
person learning about them is faced with two inputs:
¨ The
definition of the word as a math object.
¨ The
meaning and connotations of the word in English.
It is easy and natural to
suppress the information given by the definition (or part of it) and rely only
on the English meaning. But this is a bad idea:
If
another source of understanding contradicts the definition, THE DEFINITION WINS.
¨ The
connotations of a name may fit the concept in some ways and
not others. Infinite cardinal numbers are a notorious
example of this: there are some ways in which they are like numbers and other
in which they are not.
¨ The
name may have been badly chosen. Some mathematicians have been totally sloppy
about the way they chose names. For
example, nothing about the English words “group” and
“field”
suggest anything about having binary operations. For other examples see quotient
and subset. See also the discussion here.
Let’s
look at the word “series” in more detail:
In ordinary English, a series is a bunch of things, one after the other.
¨ The World Series is a series of up to seven games, coming one after another in time.
¨ A series of books is not just a bunch of books, but a bunch of books in order.
· In the case of the Harry Potter series the books are meant to be read in order.
|
|
· A publisher might publish a series of books on science, named Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, Biology, and so on, that are not meant to be read in order, but the publisher will still list them in order. (What else could they do?)
In mathematics an infinite series is an object expressed like this:
where the are numbers.
It has partial sums
For example, if is defined to be
for positive integers k, then
This infinite series converges to ,
which is
,
about 1.65. (This is not
obvious. See Zeta function (MW, Wi)).
¨ So
this “infinite series” is really
an infinite sum.
¨ It does not fit the image given by the English
word series.
¨ The
English meaning contaminates the
mathematical meaning.
¨ But
the DEFINITION WINS.
The mathematical word
that corresponds to the usual meaning of “series” is “sequence”. For example, (k = 1,2,…), in other words
is an infinite sequence, not an infinite series.
In math English, sentences of the form “P only if Q”
mean exactly the same thing as “If P then Q”. The phrase “only if” is rarely used this way in ordinary English discourse.
Sentences of the form “P
only if Q” about ordinary everyday
things generally do not mean the same thing as “If P then
Q”. That is because in
such situations there are considerations of time and causation that do not come
up with mathematical objects. Consider “If it rains, I will carry an umbrella”
and “It will rain only if I carry an umbrella”. When “P
only if Q” is about math objects,
there is no question of time and causation because math objects are inert and unchanging.
Students sometimes flatly refuse
to believe me when I tell them about the mathematical meaning of “only if”. This is a classic example of semantic
contamination. Two sources of information
appear to contradict each other, in this case (1) the professor and (2) a
lifetime of intimate experience with the English language. The information from one of these sources
must be rejected or suppressed. It is hardly surprising that many students
prefer to suppress the professor's apparently unnatural and usually unmotivated
claims.
Inequality
Analogy may suggest new theorems or
ways of doing things. But it is
fallible. What happens particularly
often in abstract math is applying a rule to a situation where it is not
appropriate. This is an easy trap to
fall into when the notation in two different cases has
the same form that is an example of formal analogy.
If r and s are real numbers then the products rs and sr are always the same number; multiplication of real numbers is commutative. However, subtraction is not commutative. In general, . This
causes no trouble because the operations
are written differently.
¨ The
product of two matrices M and N is written MN, just as for numbers. But matrix multiplication is not commutative. For example,
¨ ![]()
¨ Because
rs = sr for numbers, the formal similarity of the notation suggests MN = NM,
which is wrong.
¨ If the
product of two numbers is 0, then one or both of the numbers is zero. But that is not true for matrix multiplication:
¨ ![]()
¨
Beginning calculus students have already learned algebra.
¨ They
have learned that an expression such as xy means x times y.
¨ They
have learned to cancel like terms in a quotient, so that for example
![]()
¨ They have learned to write the value of a function f at the input x by f(x).
¨ They
have seen people write sin x instead of sin(x) but never really thought about
it.
¨ So
they write
![]()
(This
happens fairly often in freshman calculus classes. But you wouldn’t do that, would
you?