Tag Archives: representation

exposition, language of math, math, Mathematica, representations, understanding math

Thinking about abstract math

3 Comments

 

The abstraction cliff

In universities in the USA, a math major typically starts with calculus, followed by courses such as linear algebra, discrete math, or a special intro course for math majors (which may be taken simultaneously with calculus), then go on to abstract algebra, analysis, and other courses involving abstraction and proofs.

At this point, too many of them hit a wall; their grades drop and they change majors.  They had been getting good grades in high school and in calculus because they were strong in algebra and geometry, but the sudden increase in abstraction in the newer courses completely baffles them. I believe that one big difficulty is that they can't grasp how to think about abstract mathematical objects.  (See Reference [9] and note [a].)   They have fallen off the abstraction cliff.  We lose too many math majors this way. (Abstractmath.org is my major effort to address the problems math majors have during or after calculus.)

This post is a summary of the way I see how mathematicians and students think about math.  I will use it as a reference in later posts where I will write about how we can communicate these ways of thinking.

Concept Image

In 1981, Tall and Vinner  [5] introduced the notion of the concept image that a person has about a mathematical concept or object.   Their paper's abstract says

The concept image consists of all the cognitive structure in the individual's mind that is associated with a given concept. This may not be globally coherent and may have aspects which are quite different from the formal concept definition.

The concept image you may have of an abstract object generally contains many kinds of constituents:

  • visual images of the object
  • metaphors connecting the object to other concepts
  • descriptions of the object in mathematical English
  • descriptions and symbols of the object in the symbolic language of math
  • kinetic feelings concerning certain aspects of the object
  • how you calculate parameters of the object
  • how you prove particular statements about the object

This list is incomplete and the items overlap.  I will write in detail about these ideas later.

The name "concept image" is misleading [b]), so when I have written about them, I have called them metaphors or mental representations as well as concept images, for example in [3] and [4].

Abstract mathematical concepts

This is my take on the notion of concept image, which may be different from that of most researchers in math ed. It owes a lot to the ideas of Reuben Hersh [7], [8].

  • An abstract mathematical concept is represented physically in your brain by what I have called "modules" [1] (physical constituents or activities of the brain [c]).
  • The representation generally consists of many modules.  They correspond to the list of constituents of a concept image given above.  There is no assumption that all the modules are "correct".
  • This representation exists in a semi-public network of mathematicians' and students' brains. This network exercises (incomplete) control over your personal representation of the abstract structure by means of conversation with other mathematicians and reading books and papers.  In this sense, an abstract concept is a social object.  (This is the only point of view in the philosophy of math that I know of that contains any scientific content.)

Notes

[a]  Before you object that abstraction isn't the only thing they have trouble with, note that a proof is an abstract mathematical object. The written proof is a representation of the abstract structure of the proof.  Of course, proofs are a special kind of abstract structure that causes special problems for students.

[b] Cognitive science people use "image" to include nonvisual representations, but not everyone does.  Indeed, cognitive scientists use "metaphor" as well with a broader meaning than your high school English teacher.  A metaphor involves the cognitive merging of parts of two concepts (specifically with other parts not merged). See [6].

[c] Note that I am carefully not saying what the modules actually are — neurons, networks of neurons, events in the brain, etc.   From the point of view of teaching and understanding math, it doesn't matter what they are, only that they exist and live in a society where they get modified by memes  (ideas, attitudes, styles physically transmitted from brain to brain by speech, writing, nonverbal communication, appearance, and in other ways).

References

  1. Math and modules of the mind (previous post)
  2. Mathematical Concepts (previous post)
  3. Mental, physical and mathematical representations (previous post)
  4. Images and Metaphors (abstractmath.org)
  5. David Tall and Schlomo Vinner, Concept Image and Concept Definition in Mathematics with particular reference to limits and continuity, Journal Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12 (May, 1981), no. 2, 151–169.
  6. Conceptual metaphor (Wikipedia article).
  7. What is mathematics, really? by Reuben Hersh, Oxford University Press, 1999.  Read online at Questia.
  8. 18 Unconventional Essays on the Nature of Mathematics, by Reuben Hersh. Springer, 2005.
  9. Mathematical objects (abstractmath.org).

 

 

Send to Kindle
abstractmath.org, exposition, language of math, math, Mathematica, representations, understanding math

Endograph and cograph of real functions

6 Comments

This post is covered by the Creative Commons Attribution – ShareAlike 3.0 License, which means you may use, adapt and distribute the work provided you follow the requirements of the license.

Introduction

In the article Functions: Images and Metaphors in abstractmath I list a bunch of different images or metaphors for thinking about functions. Some of these metaphors have realizations in pictures, such as a graph or a surface shown by level curves. Others have typographical representations, as formulas, algorithms or flowcharts (which are also pictorial). There are kinetic metaphors — the graph of {y=x^2} swoops up to the right.

Many of these same metaphors have realizations in actual mathematical representations.

Two images (mentioned only briefly in the abstractmath article) are the cograph and the endograph of a real function of one variable. Both of these are visualizations that correspond to mathematical representations. These representations have been used occasionally in texts, but are not used as much as the usual graph of a continuous function. I think they would be useful in teaching and perhaps even sometimes in research.

A rough and unfinished Mathematica notebook is available that contains code that generate graphs and cographs of real-valued functions. I used it to generate most of the examples in this post, and it contains many other examples. (Note [1].)

The endograph of a function

In principle, the endograph (Note [2]) of a function {f} has a dot for each element of the domain and of the codomain, and an arrow from {x} to {f(x)} for each {x} in the domain. For example, this is the endograph of the function {n\mapsto n^2+1 \pmod 11} from the set {\{0,1,\ldots,10\}} to itself:


“In principle” means that the entire endograph can be shown only for small finite functions. This is analogous to the way calculus books refer to a graph as “the graph of the squaring function” when in fact the infinite tails are cut off.

Real endographs

I expect to discuss finite endographs in another post. Here I will concentrate on endographs of continuous functions with domain and codomain that are connected subsets of the real numbers. I believe that they could be used to good effect in teaching math at the college level.

Here is the endograph of the function {y=x^2} on the reals:

I have displayed this endograph with the real line drawn in the usual way, with tick marks showing the location of the points on the part shown.

The distance function on the reals gives us a way of interpreting the spacing and location of the arrowheads. This means that information can be gleaned from the graph even though only a finite number of arrows are shown. For example you see immediately that the function has only nonnegative values and that its increase grows with {x}.(See note [3]).

I think it would be useful to show students endographs such as this and ask them specific questions about why the arrows do what they do.

For the one shown, you could ask these questions, probably for class discussion rather that on homework.

  • Explain why most of the arrows go to the right. (They go left only between 0 and 1 — and this graph has such a coarse point selection that it shows only two arrows doing that!)
  • Why do the arrows cross over each other? (Tricky question — they wouldn’t cross over if you drew the arrows with negative input below the line instead of above.)
  • What does it say about the function that every arrowhead except two has two curves going into it?

Real Cographs

The cograph (Note [4] of a real function has an arrow from input to output just as the endograph does, but the graph represents the domain and codomain as their disjoint union. In this post the domain is a horizontal representation of the real line and the codomain is another such representation below the domain. You may also represent them in other configurations (Note [5]).

Here is the cograph representation of the function {y=x^2}. Compare it with the endograph representation above.

Besides the question of most arrows going to the right, you could also ask what is the envelope curve on the left.

More examples

Absolute value function

Arctangent function

Notes

[1] This website contains other notebooks you might find useful. They are in Mathematica .nb, .nbp, or .cdf formats, and can be read, evaluated and modified if you have Mathematica 8.0. They can also be made to appear in your browser with Wolfram CDF Player, downloadable free from Wolfram site. The CDF player allows you to operate any interactive demos contained in the file, but you can’t evaluate or modify the file without Mathematica.

The notebooks are mostly raw code with few comments. They are covered by the Creative Commons Attribution – ShareAlike 3.0 License, which means you may use, adapt and distribute the code following the requirements of the license. I am making the files available because I doubt that I will refine them into respectable CDF files any time soon.

[2] I call them “endographs” to avoid confusion with the usual graphs of functions — — drawings of (some of) the set of ordered pairs {x,f(x)} of the function.

[3] This is in contrast to a function defined on a discrete set, where the elements of the domain and codomain can be arranged in any old way. Then the significance of the resulting arrangement of the arrows lies entirely in which two dots they connect. Even then, some things can be seen immediately: Whether the function is a cycle, permutation, an involution, idempotent, and so on.

Of course, the placement of the arrows may tell you more if the finite sets are ordered in a natural way, as for example a function on the integers modulo some integer.

[4] The text [1] uses the cograph representation extensively. The word “cograph” is being used with its standard meaning in category theory. It is used by graph theorists with an entirely different meaning.

[5] It would also be possible to show the domain codomain in the usual {x-y} plane arrangement, with the domain the {x} axis and the codomain the {y} axis. I have not written the code for this yet.

References

[1] Sets for Mathematics, by F. William Lawvere and Robert Rosebrugh. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

[2] Martin Flashman’s website contains many exampls of cographs of functions, which he calls mapping diagrams.

Send to Kindle
abstractmath.org, exposition, language of math, math, representations, understanding math

Representations 2

Leave a comment

Introduction

In a recent post I began a discussion of the mental, physical and mathematical representations of a mathematical object. The discussion continues here. Mathematicians, linguists, cognitive scientists and math educators have investigate some aspects of this topic, but there are many subtle connections between the different ideas which need to be studied.

I don’t have any overall theoretical grasp of these relationships. What I will do here is grope for an overall theory by mentioning a whole bunch of fine points. Some of these have been discussed in the literature and some (as far as I know) have not been discussed.  Many of them (I hope)  can be described as “an obvious fact about representations but no one has pointed it out before”.  Such fine points could be valuable; I think some scholars who have written about mathematical discourse and math in the classroom are not aware of many of these facts.

I am hoping that by thrashing around like this here (for graphs of functions) and for other concepts (set, function, triangle, number …) some theoretical understanding may emerge of what it means to understand math, do math, and talk about math.

The graph of a function

Let’s look at the graph of the function {y=x^3-x}.

What you are looking at is a physical representation of the graph of the function. The graph creates in your brain a mental representation of the graph of the function. These are subtly related to each other and to the mathematical definition of the graph.

Fine points

  1. The mathematical definition [2] of the graph of this function is: The set of ordered pairs of numbers {(x,x^3-x)} for all real numbers {x}.
  2. In the physical representation, each point {(x,x^3-x)} is shown in a location determined by the conventional {x-y} coordinate system, which uses a straight-line representation of the real numbers with labels and ticks.
    • The physical representation makes use of the fact that the function is continuous. It shows the graph as a curving line rather than a bunch of points.
    • The physical representation you are looking at is not the physical representation I am looking at. They are on different computer screens or pieces of paper. We both expect that the representations are very similar, in some sense physically isomorphic.
    • “Location” on the physical representation is a physical idea. The mathematical location on the mathematical graph is essentially the concept of the physical location refined as the accuracy goes to infinity. (This last statement is a metaphor attached to a genuine mathematical construction, for example Cauchy sequences.)
  3. The mathematical definition of “graph” and the physical representation are related by a metaphor. (See Note 1.)
    • The physical curve in blue in the picture corresponds via the metaphor to the graph in the mathematical sense: in this way, each location on the physical curve corresponds to an ordered pair of the form {(x,x^3-x)}.
    • The correspondence between the locations and the pairs is imperfect. You can’t measure with infinite accuracy.
    • The set of ordered pairs {(x,x^3-x)} form a parametrized curve in the mathematical sense. This curve has zero thickness. The curve in the physical representation has positive thickness.
    • Not all the points in the mathematical graph actually occur on the physical curve: The physical curve doesn’t show the left and right infinite tails.
    • The physical curve is drawn to show some salient characteristics of the curve, such as its extrema and inflection points. This is expected by convention in mathematical writing. If the graph had left out a maximum, for example, the author would be constrained (by convention!) to say so.
    • An experienced mathematician or advanced student understands the fine points just listed. A newbie may not, and may draw false conclusions about the function from the graph. (Note 2.)
  4. If you are a mathematician or at least a math student, seeing the physical graph shown above produces a mental image(see Note 3.) of the graph in your mind.
  5. The mathematical definition and the mental image are connected by a metaphor. This is not the same metaphor as the one that connects the physical representation and the mathematical definition.
    • The curve I visualize in my mental representation has an S shape and so does the physical representation. Or does it? Isn’t the S-ness of the shape a fact I construct mentally (without consciously intending to do so!)?
    • Does the curve in the mental rep have thickness? I am not sure this is a meaningful question. However, if you are a sufficiently sophisticated mathematician, your mental image is annotated with the fact that the curve has zero thickness. (See Note 4.)
    • The curve in your mental image of the curve may very well be blue (just because you just looked at my picture) but you must have an annotation to the effect that that is irrelevant! That is the essence of metaphor: Some things are identified with each other and others are emphatically not identified.
    • The coordinate axes do exist in the physical representation and they don’t exist in the mathematical definition of the graph. Of course they are implied by the definition by the properties of the projection functions from a product. But what about your mental image of the graph? My own image does not show the axes, but I do “know” what the coordinates of some of the points are (for example, {(-1,0)}) and I “see” some points (the local maximum and the local minimum) whose coordinates I can figure out.

Notes

1. This is metaphor in the sense lately used by cognitive scientists, for example in [6]. A metaphor can be described roughly as two mental images in which certain parts of one are identified with certain parts of another, in other words a pushout. The rhetorical use of the word “metaphor” requires it to be a figure of speech expressed in a certain way (the identification is direct rather than expressed by “is like” or some such thing.)  In my use in this article a metaphor is something that occurs in your brain.  The form it takes in speech or writing is not relevant.

2. I have noticed, for example, that some students don’t really understand that the left and right tails go off to infinity horizontally as well as vertically.   In fact, the picture above could mislead someone into thinking the curve has vertical asymptotes: The right tail looks like it goes straight up.  How could it get to x equals a billion if it goes straight up?

3. The “mental image” is of course a physical structure in your brain.  So mental representations are physical representations.

4. I presume this “annotation” is some kind of physical connection between neurons or something.  It is clear that a “mental image” is some sort of physical construction or event in the brain, but from what little I know about cognitive science, the scientists themselves are still arguing about the form of the construction.  I would appreciate more information on this. (If the physical representation of mental images is indeed still controversial, this says nothing bad about cognitive science, which is very new.)

References

[1] Mental Representations in Math (previous post).

[2] Definitions (in abstractmath).

[3] Lakoff, G. and R. E. Núñez (2000), Where Mathematics Comes From. Basic Books.

Send to Kindle
language of math, math, representations, understanding math

Mental, Physical and Mathematical Representations

2 Comments

For a given mathematical object, a mathematician may have:

  • A mental representation of the object. This can be a metaphor, a mental image, or a kinesthetic understanding of the object.
  • A physical representation of the object. This may be a (physical) picture or drawing or three-dimensional model of the object.
  • A mathematical definition and one or more mathematical representations for the object. Such a representation is itself a mathematical object.

The boldface things in this list are related to each other in lots of ways, and they are fuzzy and overlap and don’t include every phenomenon connected with a math object.

I have written about these things ([1], [2], [3], [4]). So have lots of other people. In this post I summarize these ideas. I expect to write about particular examples later on and will use this as a reference.

Two Examples

The following examples point out a few of the relationships between the ideas in boldface above. There is much more to understand.

Function as black box

The idea that a function is a black box or machine with input and output is a metaphor for a function.

A is a metaphor for B means that A and B are cognitively pasted together in such a way that the behavior of A is in many ways like the behavior of B. Such a thing is both useful and dangerous, dangerous because there will be ways in which A behaves that suggest inappropriate ideas about B.

The function as machine is a good metaphor: for example functional composition involves connecting the output of one machine to the input of another, and the inverse function is like running the machine backward.

The function as machine is a bad metaphor: For example, it is wrong to think you could build a machine to calculate any given function exactly. But you can still imagine such a machine, given by a specification (it outputs the value of the function at a given input) and then, in your imagination, connecting the input of one to the output of another must perforce calculate the composite of the corresponding functions.

Like any metaphor, this is a mental representation. That means the metaphor has a physical instantiation in your brain. So a metaphor has a physical representation.

Different people won’t have quite the same concept of a particular metaphor. So a metaphor will have lots of slightly different physical representations, but mathematicians form a community, and communication between mathematicians fine-tunes the different physical instantiations so that they correspond more closely to each other. This is the sense in which mathematical objects have a shared existence in a community as Reuben Hersh has suggested.

A function is a mathematical object, which can be rigorously specified as a set of ordered pairs together with a domain and a codomain. There is a cognitive relationship between the concepts of function as math object and function as black box with input and output.

Triangle

A triangle can be drawn, or created on a computer and a physical image printed out. You may also have a mental image of the triangle.

The physical and the mental images are not the same thing, but they are definitely related. The relationship is mediated by the neuronal circuitry behind your retinas, which performs a highly sophisticated transformation of the pixels on your retina into an organized physical structure in your brain, connected to various other neurons.

This circuitry exists because it helps us get a useful understanding of the world through our eyes. So a picture of a triangle takes advantage of pre-existing neuron structure to generate a useful mental representation that helps us understand and prove things about triangles.

This mental representation also lives in a community of mathematician. Like any community, it has subgroups with “dialects” — varying understanding of representation.

For example, a mathematician who looks at the triangle below sees a triangle that looks like a right triangle. A student sees a triangle that is a right triangle.

This is “sees” in the sense of what their brain reports after all that processing. The mathematician’s brain connects the “triangle I am seeing” module (in their brain) to the “looks like a right triangle” module, but does not connect it to the “is a right triangle” module because they don’t see any statement in the surrounding text that it is a right triangle. The student, on the other hand, fallaciously makes the connection to “is a right triangle” directly.

In some sense, a student who does not make that connection directly is already a mathematician.

A triangle also exists as a mathematical object in your and my brain. It is described by a formal mathematical definition. The pictures of triangles you see above do not fit this definition. For one thing, the line segments in the pictures have thickness. But the pictures trigger a reaction in your neurons that causes your brain to cognitively paste together the line segments in the drawing to the segments required by the formal definition. This is a kind of metaphor of concrete-to-abstract that connects drawings to math objects that mathematicians use all the time.

Note that this “concrete-to-abstract metaphor” itself has a physical existence in your brain.  It drops, for example, the property of thickness that the line segments in the drawing have when matching them (in the metaphor) with the line segments in the corresponding abstract triangle.  On the other hand, it preserves the sense the all three angles in the triangle are acute.  The abstract mathematical concept of triangle (the generic triangle) has no requirement on the angles except that they add up to pi.

Summary

The discussions above describe a few of the complex and subtle relationships that exist between

  • Mental representations of math objects
  • Physical representations of math objects
  • Formally defined math objects and their formally defined representations.

I have purported to discuss how mathematics is understood (especially in connection with language) in several articles and a book but only a few of the relationships I just described are mentioned in any of those articles. Perhaps one or two things I said caused you to react: “Actually, that’s obviously true but I never thought of it before”. (Much the way I had mathematicians in the ’60’s tell me, “I see what you mean that addition is a function of two variables, but I never thought of it that way before”.) (I was a brash category theorist wannabe then.)

A lot of research has been done on understanding math, and some research has been done on mathematical discourse. But what has been done has merely exposed the fin of the shark.

References

[1] Images and metaphors (in abstractmath).

[2] Representations and Models (in abstractmath).

[3] Mathematical Concepts (previous blog).

[4] Mental Representations in Math (previous blog).

Send to Kindle
language of math, math, representations, understanding math

Mathematical concepts

5 Comments

This post was triggered by John Armstrong’s comment on my last post.

We need  to distinguish two ideas: representations of a mathematical concept and the total concept.  (I will say more about terminology later.)

Example: We can construct the quotient of the kernel of a group homomorphism by taking its cosets and defining a multiplication on them.  We can construct the image of the homomorphism by take the set of values of the homomorphism and using the multiplication induced by the codomain group.   The quotient group and the image are the same mathematical structure in the sense that anything useful you can say about one is true of the other.   For example, it may be useful to know the cardinality of the quotient (image) but it is not useful to know what its elements are.

But hold on, as the Australians say, if we knew that the codomain was an Abelian group then we would know that the quotient group was abelian because the elements of the image form a subgroup of the codomain. (But the Australians I know wouldn’t say that.)

Now that kind of thinking is based on the idea that the elements of the image are “really” elements of the codomain whereas elements of the quotients are “really” subsets of the domain.  That is outmoded thinking.  The image and the quotient are the same in all important aspects because they are naturally isomorphic.   We should think of the quotient as just as much as subgroup of the codomain as the image is.  John Baez (I think) would say that to ask whether the subgroup embedding is the identity on elements or not is an evil question.

Let’s step back and look at what is going on here.  The definition of the quotient group is a construction using cosets.  The definition of the image is a construction using values of the homomorphism.  Those are two different specific  representations of the same concept.

But what is the concept, as distinct from its representations?  Intuitively, it is

  • All the constructions made possible by the definition of the concept.
  • All the statements that are true about the concept.

(That is not precise.)

The total concept is like the clone plus the equational theory of a specific type of algebra in the sense of universal algebra.  The clone is all the operations you can construct knowing the given signature and equations and the equational theory is the set of all equations that follow from them.  That is one way of describing it.  Another is the monad in Set that gives the type of algebra — the operations are the arrows and the equations are the commutative diagrams.

Note: The preceding description of the monad is not quite right.  Also the whole discussion omits mention of the fact that we are in the world (doctrine) of universal algebra.  In the world of first order logic, for example, we need to refer to the classifying topos of the category of algebras of that type (or to its first order theory).

Terminology

We need better terminology for all this.  I am not going to propose better terminology, so this is a shaggy dog story.

Math ed people talk about a particular concept image of a concept as well as the total schema of the concept.

In categorical logic, we talk about the sketch or presentation of the concept vs. the theory. The theory is a category (of the kind appropriate to the doctrine) that contains all the possible constructions and commutative diagrams that follow from the presentation.

In this post I have used “total concept” to refer to the schema or theory.  I have referred the particular things as  “representations” (for example construct the image of a homomorphism by cosets or by values of the homomorphism).

“Representation” does not have the same connotations as “presentation”.  Indeed a presentation of a group and a representation of a group are mathematically  two different things.  But I suspect they are two different aspects of the same idea.

All this needs to be untangled.  Maybe we should come up with two completely arbitrary words, like “dostak” and “dosh”.

Send to Kindle