On Mathematicians' Different Standards When Evaluating Elementary Proofs

Citations Over TimeTop 10% of 2013 papers

Abstract

In this article, we report a study in which 109 research-active mathematicians were asked to judge the validity of a purported proof in undergraduate calculus. Significant results from our study were as follows: (a) there was substantial disagreement among mathematicians regarding whether the argument was a valid proof, (b) applied mathematicians were more likely than pure mathematicians to judge the argument valid, (c) participants who judged the argument invalid were more confident in their judgments than those who judged it valid, and (d) participants who judged the argument valid usually did not change their judgment when presented with a reason raised by other mathematicians for why the proof should be judged invalid. These findings suggest that, contrary to some claims in the literature, there is not a single standard of validity among contemporary mathematicians.

Related Papers

• → Do Generic Proofs Improve Proof Comprehension?(2020)10 cited
• → What are acceptable reductions?(2023)3 cited
• → Combining Pencil/Paper Proofs and Formal Proofs, A Challenge for Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics Education(2022)4 cited
• → Mathematical Proofs 101: How Proofs Should Be Read, Written, and Taught(2018)
• Passages of Proof(2003)