When I think of the Ramanujan story, I think that when he says each of the integers were his personal friends he meant that he knew an intimate facts about each number. He knew that 1729 was interesting because it was the smallest number that could be written as 2 different sums of cubes. He knows interesting facts about the numbers as a person in a small town knows interesting facts about all the people they walk past. I understand that Major's paper implies that he saw personalities with each number and befriended those personalities, but I personally do not believe that to be the case.
The only aspect of this article that I would implement in my classroom is the idea that the words we use to describe the numbers are not the same thing as the numbers themselves. It is important to connect the numbers to the words at a young age while the concept of quantities develops. However, once the idea has been cemented, it is important to break down that idea and understand the quantities in their true abstract form. By seeing quantities as abstract, we have accomplished the greatest mathematical breakthroughs. 0, negative numbers, imaginary numbers, etc.
Unfortunately I do not relate to this article in any way. I understand that I must be open to these ideas for I will have students enter my class who relate strongly to these ideas. In my class, I will act similar to an atheist who is accepting of those who have faith. While I do not agree, I would never dampen their belief system.
Hi Evan, you've really paid attention to the nuances, here, of honouring different ways people relate to numbers. Your honesty and sensitivity to differing relatedness is appreciated. I would be interested to know if there are any mental models that you associate with numbers, calendars, or other things. If not personality, then maybe a different schema?
ReplyDelete