The Kline Identity "Morris Kline Society" initiatives:

a newsletter of the 1. campaign for a "Morris Kline Commemorative

MORRIS KLINE SOCIETY Stamp";

2. re-release “Why Johnny Can’t Add” and “A Critique

of Undergraduate Education” (formerly known as
“Why the Professor Can’t Teach”);

3. keep a steady stream of “Morris Kline” material in the

forefront of American math education by way of the
monthly newsletter “The Kline Identity”;

4. create a discussion forum, discussing and debating the

philosophy, application, and pedagogy of math;

5. plan a May 8, 2008 celebration, the 100th anniversary

of the birth of Morris Kline, kicking off a series of
events, including a campaign to make available his
works on a wide basis.

In addition to the site www.morriskline.com, “The Kline

2007 Identity” newsletter will serve as means to communicate the
Volume 2 words of the great Morris Kline.
IN THIS ISSUE
1 An Introduction There are no dues to be a member of the society.
2 A Critique of Undergraduate Education: Chapter 1
5 Why Johnny Can’t Add: Chapters 1-2
10 Visual-Logical Thoughts on “The Meaning of it All”
13 Quotes from Books and Interviews

2007
Volume 3
NEXT ISSUE
A Critique of Undergraduate Education: Chapter 2
Why Johnny Can’t Add: Chapters 3-4
 2
Visual-Logical Thoughts on “The Meaning of it All”
Quotes from Books and Interviews
 3
A CRITIQUE OF UNDERGRADUATE
EDUCATION
Chapter 1
The Vicious Circle
In a self-centered circle, he goes round and round,
That he is a wonder is true;
For who but an egotist ever could be
Circumference and center, too.
Sarah Fells
Peter Landers found himself caught in a vicious circle. He had
just secured a Ph.D. in mathematics from Prestigious
University and, having been well recommended, readily
secured a faculty position at Admirable University. Thereupon
Peter faced the problem of teaching mathematics to prospective
engineers, social scientists, physicists, elementary and
secondary school teachers, the general liberal arts students, and
those who, like himself, had chosen to become mathematicians.
Peter was fully aware of these varied career interests, and he
also knew that students came to college with different drives
and preparation. But he was confident that his education,
typical for Ph.D.’s, had prepared him for the tasks ahead.
To put himself in the proper frame of mind he reviewed his
own education. The elementary school courses had been
acceptable. After all, one did have to know how much to pay
for five candy bars if he knew the price of a single bar. True,
some operations were baffling. It had not been clear why the
division of two fractions had to be performed by inverting the
denominator and multiplying - but the teacher seemed to know
what was correct. He had constantly referred to rules,
principles, and laws. Rules, like rules of behavior, apparently
applied to arithmetic, too. For all Peter had known, principles
were laid down by the principals of the schools, and certainly
they were authorities. As for laws, everyone knew that there
were city laws, state laws, federal laws, and even the laws of
the Ten Commandments. Certainly laws must be obeyed.
Though under some tension as to whether he was violating
laws, Peter was young and resilient. In any case, what to do
was clear and the answers were right.
In his review of his high school education Peter did recall some
doubts he had had about the value of what he was being taught.
He hadn't understood why the teacher had to stress that the sum
of two whole numbers is a whole number, or why he had to
prove that there is one and only one midpoint on every line
segment; but evidently the teacher was trying to make sure that
no one could be mistaken on these elementary matters. After
all, teachers knew best what had to be done.
Peter also recalled one teacher's enthusiasm about the quadratic
formula. “You see,” the teacher proclaimed triumphantly after
he had derived the formula, “we can now solve any quadratic
equation.” But Peter had been perverse and had asked the
teacher why anyone wanted to solve any quadratic equation.
The teacher's reply was a disdainful look that caused Peter to
shrink back. His question must have been a silly one.
He remembered a similar experience in geometry. After a long
and apparently strenuous effort, the teacher proved that two
triangles are congruent if the sides of one are equal respectively
to the sides of the other. Then he turned to the class as if
expecting applause. Again Peter dared to speak up: “But isn’t
that obvious? A triangle is a rigid figure. If you put three sticks
together to form a triangle, you cannot change its size or
shape.” Peter had learned this at the age of five while playing
with Erector sets. The teacher's contempt was obvious. “Who’s
talking about sticks? We are concerned with triangles.”
Despite a few other disagreeable incidents Peter continued to
like mathematics. He believed in his teachers. It was easy to
comply with their requests, and the certitude of the results gave
him, as they had given others before him, immense satisfaction.
And so Peter moved on to college with the conviction that he
liked mathematics and was going to major in it.
His first experiences were disturbing. After his program was
approved by an adviser who did not understand what an
Advanced Placement Examination Grade of 4.5 meant - the
adviser had thought that 10 was a perfect grade so that 4.5 was
a poor one - Peter was finally registered.
He entered his first college classroom for a course which
happened to be English. To his surprise he found about five
hundred students already seated. The professor arrived,
delivered his lecture, and, obviously very busy, rushed out of
the room. Peter never found out what his name was, but
apparently names were not important, because the professor
never bothered to ask any student his name either. Nor, Peter
thought, would the professor have noticed had a different group
of five hundred students appeared each time. Term papers were
required, and these were graded by graduate students who
insisted that “Who shall I call next?” was correct, though Peter
had been taught otherwise in high school. The size of the class
and the impersonal character of the instruction disturbed Peter
at first, but he soon realized that the requirements of the
English course could be met merely by listening. And so he
relaxed.
Peter’s second class, one in social science, surprised him for
different reasons. At the professor's desk was a young man not
much older than Peter. As the instructor conducted the lesson
he was obviously nervous. Somehow the lessons throughout
the semester were confined almost entirely to the first part of
the text. And the instructor did not welcome questions.
The third class - mathematics - was a shock. Peter entered the
room and found that it was a large auditorium. At the bottom of
the room, at the professor’s desk, was not a man but a box,
which proved to be a television set. Shortly after Peter’s
entrance the box began to speak and the students took notes
feverishly. From many seats one could not see clearly, if at all.
But by coming early one could get a good seat. And so Peter
 4
managed to learn some of his college mathematics by listening
and looking at a TV program.
Though it was not a requirement, Peter decided to take some
physics. He had heard somewhere that mathematics was
applied to physics, and he thought he should find out what
these applications were. The physics professor constantly
talked about infinitesimals and which infinitesimals could be
neglected. The mathematics professors, however, had warned
that such concepts and procedures were loose and even
incorrect. But Peter listened attentively. He was sure that even
though the mathematics and the physics professors apparently
did not communicate with each other and so did not talk the
same language, their methodologies could be reconciled. He
did seek counsel from his professors on this matter, but
unfortunately they were not available. One was actually living
out of the city, in Washington, D.C.; another was always
involved in consultations outside the university; and a third had
office hours only on Sundays, from 6:00 to 8:00 A.M.
In the junior and senior years the classes were smaller, and the
courses were usually taught by older faculty. Many blithely
ignored the texts they had assigned and spent the period
transferring material from their notes to the board. The
professors copied assiduously and the students did likewise.
When the professors looked up from their notes they looked
into the blackboard as though the students were behind it.
Nevertheless Peter persevered, received his bachelor's degree,
and proceeded to graduate school. His experiences there
paralleled those of most other students. Professors were hard to
contact. The bulletin descriptions of the courses bore no
relation to what the professors taught. Each professor presented
his own specialty as though nothing had been done or was
being done by anyone else in the world. And so Peter learned
about categories, infinite Abelian groups, diffeomorphisms,
noncommutative rings, and a variety of other specialties.
Prospective Ph.D.’s must write a doctoral thesis. Finding a
thesis adviser was like hunting for water in a desert. After
many trials, including writing theses on topics suggested by his
professor that, it turned out, had been done elsewhere and even
published, Peter wrote a thesis on almost perfect numbers that
completed his work for the degree.
With the Ph.D. behind him, Peter presumed he was prepared
for college teaching. Upon taking up his position at Admirable
University he received from his department chairman the
syllabi for the several courses he was to teach and was told
what texts he was to use for these courses. Cheerful, personable
Peter went about his assigned tasks with enthusiasm, He had
always liked mathematics and had no doubt that he could
convey his enthusiasm and understanding of the subject to his
students. He had been informed by the chairman that to secure
promotion and tenure he would be expected to do research.
This requirement in no way dimmed Peter’s spirit, because he
had been told repeatedly that mathematicians do research and
was confident that the training he had received had prepared
him for it.
But the world soon began to close in on Peter. As a novice he
was assigned to teach freshmen and sophomores. His first
course was for liberal arts students, that is, students who do not
intend to use mathematics professionally but who take it either
to meet a requirement for a degree or just to learn more about
the subject. Recognizing that many of these students are weak
in algebra, Peter thought he would review negative numbers.
To make these numbers meaningful he reminded the students
that they are used to represent temperatures below zero; and to
emphasize the physical significance of negative temperatures
he pointed out that water freezes at 32° F, so that a negative
temperature means a state far below freezing. Though the
example was pedagogically wise, Peter could see at once that
the students’ minds had also frozen, and the rest of his lesson
could not penetrate the ice.
In a later lesson Peter tried another subject. As an algebraist by
preference he thought students would enjoy learning about a
novel algebra. There is an arithmetic that reduces all whole
numbers by the nearest multiple of twelve. To make his lesson
concrete Peter presented clock arithmetic as a practical
example: Clocks ignore multiples of twelve, so that four hours
after ten o'clock is two o'clock. The mere mention of clocks
caused the students to look at their watches, and it was obvious
that they were counting the minutes until the end of the period.
And so Peter tried another novelty, the Kongsberg bridge
problem. Some two hundred years ago the citizens of the
village of Kongsberg in East Prussia became intrigued with the
problem of crossing seven nearby bridges in succession without
redressing any. The problem attracted Leonard Euler, the
eighteenth century's greatest mathematician, and he soon
showed by an ingenious trick that such a path was impossible.
The villagers, who did not know this, continued for years to
amuse themselves by making one trip after another during their
walks on sunny afternoons - but when Peter presented the
problem in the artificial, gloomy light of the classroom, a chill
descended on the class.
Peter’s next class was a group of pre-engineering students.
These students, he was sure, would appreciate mathematics,
and so he introduced the subject of Boolean algebra. This
algebra, created by the mathematician and logician George
Boole, does have application to the design of electric circuits.
The mention of electric circuits appeared to arouse some
interest, and so Peter explained Boolean algebra. But then one
student asked Peter how one uses the algebra to design circuits.
Unfortunately, Peter's training had been in pure mathematics
and he did not know how to answer the question. He was
compelled to admit this and detected obvious signs of
disappointment and hostility in the students. They evidently
believed that they had been tricked. In his attempts to explain
and clarify other mathematical themes Peter also learned that
engineering students cared only about rules they could use for
building things. Mathematics proper was of no interest.
Nor were the premedical students any more kindly disposed to
mathematics. Their attitude was that doctors do not use
 5
mathematics but take it only because it is required for the
physics course, and even the physics seemed of dubious value.
The physical and social scientists had a similar attitude.
Mathematics was a tool. They were interested in the real world
and in real people, and certainly mathematics was not part of
that reality.
Peter was soon called upon to teach prospective elementary and
high school teachers. He did not expect much of the former.
These students were preparing to teach many different subjects
and so could not take a strong interest in mathematics.
However, high school teachers specialize in one area, and Peter
certainly expected them to appreciate what he had to offer. But
every time he introduced a new topic, the first question the
students asked was, “Will we have to teach this?” Peter did not
know what the high schools were currently teaching or what
they were likely to teach in any changes impending in the high
school curriculum. Hence, he honestly answered either 'No' or
“I don't know.” Upon hearing either response the prospective
teachers withdrew into their shells, or Peter's teachings were
reflected from impenetrable surfaces.
Peter's one hope for a response to his enthusiasm for teaching
was the mathematics majors. Surely they would appreciate
what he had to offer. But even these students seemed to want to
“get it over with.” If he presented a theorem and proof, they
noted them carefully and could repeat them on tests; however,
any discussion of why the theorem was useful or why one
method of proof was likely to be more successful or more
desirable than another bored them.
A couple of years of desperate but fruitless efforts caused Peter
to sit back and think. He had projected himself and his own
values and he had failed. He was not reaching his students. The
liberal arts students saw no value in mathematics. The
mathematics majors pursued mathematics because, like Peter,
they were pleased to get correct answers to problems. But there
was no genuine interest in the subject. Those students who
would use mathematics in some profession or career insisted on
being shown immediately how the material could be useful to
them. A mere assurance that they would need it did not suffice.
And so Peter began to wonder whether the subject matter
prescribed in the syllabi was really suitable. Perhaps,
unintentionally, he was wasting his students’ time.
Peter decided to investigate the value of the material he had
been asked to teach. His first recourse was to check with his
colleagues, who had taught from five to twenty-five or more
years. But they knew no more than Peter about what physical
scientists, social scientists, engineers, and high school and
elementary school teachers really ought to learn. Like himself,
they merely followed syllabi - and no one knew who had
written the syllabi.
Peter's next recourse was to examine the textbooks in the field.
Surely professors in other institutions had overcome the
problems he faced. His first glance through
publishers'’catalogues cheered him. He saw titles such as
Mathematics for Liberal Arts, Mathematics for Biologists,
Calculus for Social Scientists, and Applied Mathematics for
Engineers. He eagerly secured copies. But the texts proved to
be a crushing disappointment. Only the authors’ and
publishers’ names seemed to differentiate them. The contents
were about the same, whether the authors in their prefaces or
the publishers in their advertising literature professed to
address liberal arts students, prospective engineers, students of
business, or prospective teachers. Motivation and use of the
mathematics were entirely ignored. It was evident that these
authors had no idea of what anyone did with mathematics.
Clearly a variety of new courses had to be fashioned and texts
written that would present material appropriate for the
respective audiences. The task was, of course, enormous, and it
was certain that it could not be accomplished by one man over
a few years' time. Nevertheless Peter became enthusiastic about
the prospect of interesting investigations and writing that would
lure students into the study of mathematics and endear it to
them. The spirit of the teacher arose and swelled within him.
As these pleasant thoughts swirled through his mind, another,
dampening thought, like a dark cloud on the horizon, soon
entered. He was a recently appointed professor. Promotion and,
more important, tenure were yet to be secured. Without these
his efforts to improve teaching would be pointless - he would
be unable to put the product of his work to use. But promotion
and tenure were obtained through research in some highly
advanced and recondite problems almost necessarily chosen in
the only field in which he had acquired some competence
through his doctoral work. Such research was no minor
undertaking. It demanded full time and total effort.
Clearly, he must give the research precedence, and then
perhaps he could undertake the improvement of teaching. And
so for practical reasons Peter decided to devote the next few
years to research. But the struggle to publish and to remain in
the swim for promotion and salary increases caught Peter in a
vortex of never-ending spirals of motion; and the closer he
came to the center the deeper he was sucked into research. In
the meantime Peter continued to teach in accordance with the
syllabi and texts handed down to him by his chairman. His few,
necessarily limited efforts to stir up some activity among his
older colleagues, who were in a better position to break from
the existing patterns, were futile because these professors had
accepted the existing state of affairs and chose to shine in
research. Success there was more prestigious and more
lucrative.
Ultimately, Peter, like other human beings, succumbed to the
lures that prominence in research held forth. As for the students
—well, students came and went, and they soon became vague
faces and unremembered names. Education might hope for an
epiphany, but Peter was not ordained to be the god of
educational reformation. By the time he had acquired tenure he
had joined the club. Like others before him he concentrated on
research and the training of future researchers who would also
be compelled to resort to perfunctory and ineffective teaching.
Peter had taken his place in the vicious circle.
The history of Peter Landers’ aborted teaching efforts, real
 6
enough, seems exaggerated. One might conceive of its taking
place in nineteenth-century Germany or France. But the United
States is devoted to education. We were the first nation to
espouse universal education and to foster the realization of the
potential of every youth. Our Founding Fathers, notably
Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, stressed the
necessity of this policy, and it was adopted. Even today no
country matches the educational opportunities and facilities
that the United States provides for its youth. But the practices
within educational institutions seem to be in marked variance
with the principles and policies of our country.
How has it come to pass that Peter and the many thousands of
his colleagues find themselves enslaved by research, while
education, the major goal of our vast educational system, is
being sacrificed? Does the pressure to do research stem from
the professors because they prefer the prestige and monetary
rewards? Or does it come from the university administrations?
In either case, does not research make for better teaching? Or is
there a conflict between the two, and if there is, how can we
resolve it? Since the crux of the problem lies with the
universities – which train the teachers of all educational
disciplines and at all levels – we must examine the policies and
practices of our higher educational institutions.
WHY JOHNNY CAN’T ADD
Chapter 1
A Taste of Modern Mathematics
".. . Great God! I'd rather be
A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn;
So might l, . .
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn."
William Wordsworth
Let us look into a modern mathematics classroom. The teacher
asks, “Why is 2 + 3 = 3 + 2?”
Unhesitatingly the students reply, “Because both equal 5.”
“No,” reproves the teacher, “the correct answer is because the
commutative law of addition holds.” Her next question is,
“Why is 9 + 2 = 11?
Again the students respond at once: “9 and 1 are 10 and 1 more
is 11.”
“Wrong,” the teacher exclaims. "The correct answer is that by
the definition of 2,
9 + 2 = 9 + (1 + 1).
But because the associative law of addition holds,
9 + (1 + 1) = (9 + 1) + 1.
Now 9 + 1 is 10 by the definition of 10 and 10 + 1 is 11 by the
definition of 11.”
Evidently the class is not doing too well and so the teacher tries
a simpler question. “Is 7 a number?” The students, taken aback
by the simplicity of the question, hardly deem it necessary to
answer; but the sheer habit of obedience causes them to reply
affirmatively. The teacher is aghast. “If I asked you who you
are, what would you say?”
The students are now wary of replying, but one more
courageous youngster does do so: “I am Robert Smith.”
The teacher looks incredulous and says chidingly, “You mean
that you are the name Robert Smith? Of course not. You are a
person and your name is Robert Smith. Now let us get back to
my original question: Is 7 a number? 0f course not! It is the
name of a number. 5 + 2, 6 + 1, and 8 - 1 are names for the
same number. The symbol 7 is a numeral for the number.”
The teacher sees that the students do not appreciate the
distinction and so she tries another tack. “Is the number 3 half
of the number 8?” she asks. Then she answers her own
question: “Of course not! But the numeral 3 is half of the
numeral 8, the right half.”
The students are now bursting to ask, “What then is a number?”
However, they are so discouraged by the wrong answers they
have given that they no longer have the heart to voice the
question. This is extremely fortunate for the teacher, because to
explain what a number really is would be beyond her capacity
and certainly beyond the capacity of the students to understand
it. And so thereafter the students are careful to say that 7 is a
numeral, not a number. Just what a number is they never find
out.
The teacher is not fazed by the pupils’ poor answers. She asks,
“How can we express properly the whole numbers between 6
and 9?”
“Why,” one pupil answers, “just 7 and 8.”
“No”, the teacher replies. “It is the set of numbers which is the
intersection of the set of whole numbers larger than 6 and the
set of whole numbers less than 9.”
Thus are students taught the use of sets and, presumably,
precision.
A teacher thoroughly convinced of the vaunted value of precise
language, and wishing to ask her students whether a number of
lollipops equals a number of girls, phrases the question thus:
“Find out if the set of lollipops is in one-to-one correspondence
with the set of girls.” Needless to say, she gets no answer from
the students.
 7
Bent but not broken, the teacher asks one more question: “How
much is 2 divided by 4?”
A bright student says unhesitatingly, “Minus 2.”
“How did you get that result?” asks the teacher.
“Well,” says the student, “you have taught us that division is
repeated subtraction. I subtracted 4 from 2 and got minus 2.”
It would seem that the poor children would deserve some
relaxation after school, but parents anxious to know what
progress their children are making a1so query them. One parent
asked his eight-year-old child, “How much is 5 + 3?” The
answer he received was that 5 + 3 = 3 + 5 by the commutative
law. Flabbergasted, he re-phrased the question: “But how many
apples are 5 apples and 3 apples?”
The child didn't quite understand that “and” means plus and so
he asked, “Do you mean 5 apples plus 3 apples?”
The parent hastened to say yes and waited expectantly.
“Oh,” said the child, “it doesn't matter whether you are talking
about apples, pears or books; 5 + 3 = 3 + 5 in every case.”
Another father, concerned about how his young son was getting
a1ong in arithmetic, asked him how he was faring.
“Not so well,” the boy replied. “The teacher keeps talking
about associative, commutative and distributive laws. I just add
and get the right answer, but she doesn’t like that.”
These minor examples may illustrate, and perhaps caricature,
some features of the curriculum now called modern
mathematics or the new mathematics. We shall examine the
major features in greater detail in due course and we sha1l
consider their merits and demerits. But first, we shall review
briefly the old mathematics to see what defects prompted the
development of a new curriculum.
WHY JOHNNY CAN’T ADD
Chapter 2
The Traditional Curriculum
“I have found you an argument but I am not obliged to find you
an understanding.”
Samuel Johnson
Though the traditional curriculum has been affected somewhat
in recent years by the spirit of reform, its basic features are
readily described. The first six grades of the elementary school
are devoted to arithmetic. In the seventh and eighth grades the
students take up a bit of algebra and simple facts of geometry
such as formulas for area and volume of common figures. The
first year of high school is concerned with elementary algebra,
the second with deductive geometry, and the third with more
a1gebra (generally called intermediate a1gebra) and with
trigonometry. The fourth high school year usually covers solid
geometry and advanced algebra; however, there has not been as
much uniformity about fourth-year work as there has been for
the earlier years.
Several serious criticisms of this curriculum have been voiced
repeatedly. The first major criticism, which applies to algebra
in particular, is that it presents mechanical processes and
therefore forces the student to rely upon memorization rather
than understanding.
The nature of such mechanical processes can readily be
illustrated. Let us consider an arithmetical example. To add the
fractions 5/4 and 2/3, that is, to ca1cu1ate
5 2
+
4 3
students are told to find first the least common denominator,
that is, the smallest number into which 4 and 3 divide evenly.
This number is 12. One then divides 4 into 12, obtains 3, and
mu1tiplies the numerator 5 of the first fraction by 3. Similarly
one divides 3 into 12, obtains 4, and multiplies the numerator 2
of the second fraction by 4. The result thus far is to convert the
above sum into the equal sum
15 8
+
12 12
One now sees easily that the sum is 23/12.
A good teacher would no doubt do his best to help students
grasp the rationale of this process, but on the whole the
traditiona1 curricu1um does not pay much attention to
understanding. It relies upon drill to get, students to do the
process readily.
After students learn to add numerical fractions they face a new
hurdle when asked in a1gebra to add fractions where letters are
involved. Though the same process is used to ca1cu1ate
3 2
+
x + a x− a
the individual steps are more complicated. Again the
curriculum relies upon drill to put the lesson across. The
students are asked to carry out the additions in numerous
exercises until they can perform them readily.
They are taught many dozens of such processes: factoring,
 8
solving equations in one and two unknowns, the uses of
exponents, addition, subtraction, multiplication and division of
polynomials, and operations with negative numbers and
radicals such as 3 in each case they are asked to imitate what
the teacher and the text show them how to do. Hence the
students are faced with a bewildering variety of processes
which they repeat by rote in order to master them. The learning
is almost always sheer memorization.
It is a1so true that the various processes are disconnected, at
least as usually presented. They rarely have much to do with
each other. While all these processes do contribute to the goal
of enabling the student to perform a1gebraic operations in
advanced mathematics, as far as the students can see the topics
are unrelated. They are like pages torn from a hundred different
books, no one of which conveys the life, meaning and spirit of
mathematics. This presentation of algebra begins nowhere and
ends nowhere.
After a year of such work in algebra the traditiona1 curriculum
shifts to Euclidean geometry. Here mathematics sudden1y
becomes deductive. That is, the text starts with definitions of
the geometrical figures and with axioms or basic assertions
which are presumably “obviously true” about the figures. They
then prove theorems by applying deductive reasoning to the
axioms. The theorems follow each other in a logical sequence;
that is, the proofs of later theorems depend upon the
conclusions already established in the earlier theorems. The
sudden shift from mechanical algebra to deductive geometry
certainly bothers most students. They have not thus far in their
mathematics education learned what “proof” is and must
master this concept in addition to learning subject matter
proper.
The concept of proof is fundamental in mathematics, and so in
geometry the students have the opportunity to learn one of the
great features of the subject. But since the final deductive proof
of a theorem is usually the end result of a lot of guessing and
experimenting and often depends on an ingenious scheme
which permits proving the theorem in the proper logical
sequence, the proof is not necessarily a natural one, that is, one
which would suggest itself readily to the adolescent mind.
Moreover, the deductive argument gives no insight into the
difficulties that were overcome in the original creation of the
proof. Hence the student cannot see the rationale and he does
the same thing in geometry that he does in algebra. He
memorizes the proof.
Another problem troubles many students. Since algebra is also
part of mathematics, why is deductive proof required in
geometry but not in algebra? This problem becomes more
pointed when students take intermediate algebra, usually after
the geometry course, because there proof is again abandoned in
favor of techniques.
With or without proof, the traditional method of teaching
results in far too much of only one kind of learning -
memorization. The claim that such a presentation teaches
thinking is grossly exaggerated. By way of evidence, if
evidence is needed, I have challenged hundreds of high school
and college teachers to give open book examinations. This
suggestion shocks them. But if we are really teaching thinking
and not memorization, what could the students take from the
books?
The traditiona1 curriculum has also become too traditional.
Some topics that received considerable emphasis for
generations have lost significance but are still retained. One
example is the solution of triangles in trigonometry. Here,
given some parts - sides and angles of a triangle, the theory
shows how to compute other parts and even how to use
logarithms in the calcu1ations. This topic, which had far more
relevance when trigonometry was taught primarily to
prospective surveyors, should have been deemphasized long
ago. Another example is the computation of irrational roots of
polynomial equations. The method usually taught, called
Horner's method, requires several weeks of class time and does
not warrant it.
There are also minor logical defects in the traditional
curriculum. For example, students are taught that x 2 − 4 can
be factored into ( x + 2)( x − 2) , but that x 2 − 2 cannot be
factored. However, the latter can be factored if we are willing
to introduce irrational numbers. In this event the factors are
x − 2 and x + 2 . Likewise x 2 + 2 can be factored if we are
willing to use complex numbers. In this case the factors are
x + 2i and x − 2i where i = −1 . Thus the error made in the
traditional method of teaching is the failure to specify the class
of numbers we are willing to consider in order to perform the
factoring.
Beyond the few defects we have already described, the
traditional curriculum suffers from the gravest defect that one
can charge to any curriculum – lack of motivation.
Mathematics proper, to use the words of the famous twentieth-
century mathematician Hermann Weyl, has the inhuman
quality of starlight, brilliant and sharp, but cold. It is also
abstract. It dea1s with mental concepts, though some, such as
geometrical ones, can be visualized. On both accounts, the
coldness and the abstractness, very few students are attracted to
the subject.
Young people can no doubt see that there is some point to
learning arithmetic but they can see little reason to study
algebra, geometry and trigonometry. Why shou1d they learn
the addition of algebraic fractions, the solution of equations,
factoring and other topics? The appeal of geometry is not
greater. It is true that students can see what geometry is about
and what the theorems assert; the figures make clear what this
branch of mathematics dea1s with. But the question of why one
should study this material is still not answered. One can readily
understand what the history of China is about, but may still
question why he shou1d be obliged to learn it. Why is it
important to know that the opposite angles of a parallelogram
are equal or that the altitudes of a triangle meet in a point?
Clearly one cannot defend algebra, geometry and trigonometry
 9
on the ground that they will be of use later in life. The educated
layman does not have occasion to use this knowledge at any
time unless he becomes a professional scientist, mathematician,
or engineer. But this group cannot be more than a few per cent
of the high school popu1ation. Moreover, even if all of the
students were to use some mathematics later in life this usage
cannot be motivation. Young people cannot be asked to take
seriously material that they might need years later. This
motivation is often described as offering “pie in the sky.”
As a matter of fact, in an effort to motivate the students, the
schools did try to teach some uses of arithmetic in the seventh
and eighth grades. They taught simple and compound interest
and discount on loans. But twelve- and thirteen-year-old
students did not take to such material and the experiment is
conceded to be a failure. The motivation must appeal to the
student at the time he takes the course.
Another motivation often dang1ed before students is that they
must study mathematics to get into college. If the mathematics
they have been taught in elementary and high school is typical
of what lies ahead in college, they may not want to go to
college.
The prospective mathematicians, scientists, and engineers will
find mathematics useful in their careers. But if the mathematics
presented gives no inkling of how it will be useful and if it is in
itself totally unattractive, telling the students that it is needed in
science and engineering will only encourage them to seek
another career.
Much of the mathematics taught is often defended as “training
the mind.” There may very well be some training, but the same
effect can be achieved with subject matter that is far more
understandable and agreeable. One could teach the commonly
used forms of reasoning by resorting to social or simple legal
problems whose relevance to life is far more apparent to the
students. One does not need mathematics to teach people that
the statement “All good cars are expensive” is not the same
statement as “All expensive cars are good.” Moreover, the use
of social or legal problems does not require the mastery of
technical language, symbolism, and abstract concepts, which
tend to obscure the reasoning. Thus it is far more difficult for
the student to see that the statement “All parallelograms are
quadrilaterals” is not the same as “All quadrilaterals are
parallelograms.” In fact, experience in teaching shows that to
make the logical arguments used in mathematical reasoning
clear to the student, one must use non mathematical examples
involving the same arguments. Moreover, there is some
question about whether the training to think in one sphere
carries over to thinking in another. One may be inclined to
believe that it does, but one could not prove that this is so.
Another commonly advanced justification for teaching
mathematics at the high school level is the beauty of the
subject. But we know that the subjects taught have not been
selected because they are beautiful. They have been selected
because they are necessary for further work in mathematics.
There is no beauty in adding fractions, in the quadratic formula,
or in the law of sines. No amount of preaching or rhapsodizíng
about the beauty of mathematics will make such ug1y
ducklings appealing. Moreover, novitiates - are not likely to
find beauty in a subject they are still striving to master, any
more than one who is learning French grammar can appreciate
the beauty in French literature.
A few students are attracted to mathematics by the intellectual
challenge or because they like what they happen to do well.
The rare student who experiences this challenge may indeed be
intrigued - as some mathematicians are - by the fact that there
are only five regular polyhedra. However, as far as most
students are concerned, the world would be just as well off if
there were an infinite number of them. As a matter of fact,
there is an infinite number of regular polygons and no one
seems depressed by this fact.
There is indeed an intellectual value in mathematics. But there
is a question of whether young people can appreciate it just as
there is about whether a six-year-old can appreciate Beethovens
music. If the teacher proves a theorem of mathematics, the
student will still be struggling to understand the theorem, its
proof and its meaning. While undergoing such struggles the
student is not likely to be impressed with the intellectual
content and what the human mind has accomplished. In him the
theorem and proof produce bewilderment and confusion.
Beyond the purported values of training the mind, beauty and
intellectual challenge, the defenders of the traditional
curriculum point to the exercises. These, they say, show uses of
mathematics and should convince the student that the material
is important. There are work problems such as the ditch-
digger’s dilemma. “One man can dig - a ditch in two days and
another in three days. How much time will be required if both
men dig it together?” Such problems create pointless work.
Then there are tank-filling problems for students who have no
swimming pools to fill. Or the mixture problems: “How many
quarts of milk with ten per cent cream and how many quarts of
milk with five per cent cream must be mixed to make a
hundred quarts of milk with fifty per cent cream?” Such
problems are useful to farmers who wish to fake the cream
content of their milk. Other mixture problems concern mixing
brands of coffee or brands of tea to make undrinkable brews.
There are age problems too: “Jane is twenty years older than
Mary. In ten years time Jane will be twice as old. How old is
Mary?” This type of problem calls for finding out other
people’s ages, and many people are sensitive about their ages.
There are also number problems, such as “One number is three
times another number minus two. What are the numbers?”
(The numbers racket is actually illegal.) More realistic are
board problems. “A board seven feet long is to be cut into two
parts, one of which is to be two feet longer than the other. How
long are the parts?” Of course students are bored with board
problems.
And we shouldn’t neglect to mention the time, rate and
 10
distance problems, such as up- and down-river travel for
students who are going nowhere and whose desire to go
anywhere has not been aroused. Some problems involve taking
walks around a circular garden and ask for the dimensions of
the garden. If we allowed the students to take walks around the
garden and provided each with a pleasant companion we
wou1d do the students more good.
All these problems are hopelessly artificial and will not
convince anyone that algebra is usefu1.
Some authors of algebra texts do point to "truly physical"
problems. For example, Ohms law states that the voltage E
equals the current I times the resistance R. In symbols E = IR.
Calculate E if I = 20 and R = 30.
But the current involved in such problems doesn’t drive any
mental motors. So far as the student is informed, Ohms law
could be describing the number of marriages in Burma each
year.
For generations the calculus textbooks have asked students to
calculate centers of gravity and moments of inertia of bodies
without ever pointing out why these quantities are significant.
Consequently, the gravity of these problems produces nothing
but inertia in the students. Such physical problems, presented
with no preliminary explanation of physical background or
physica1 significance, mean nothing to the student. Clearly, a
physical application is worthless if the student cannot see what
is accomplished.
Even the use of the word “application” is often bothersome.
Students are taught, say, a formula for area and are then asked
to calculate areas with it. These calculations are supposed to be
an application. This kind of application adds insult to injury.
Since the so-called applications are still pointless and still part
of mathematics proper, in what sense are they applications?
The fact is, then, that no motivation for the study of
mathematics is offered in the traditiona1 curriculum. Students
take it because they are required to. Motivation means more
than a psychological stimulus. Genuine motivation also
supplies insight into the very meaning of the mathematics. A
great deal of mathematics, particularly on the elementary level,
was suggested directly by real situations and problems. The
bare formula s = 16t 2 acquires meaning when one learns that it
relates the distance fallen and time of travel of an object which
is dropped. An ellipse becomes more than just another curve
when one learns that it is the path of a planet around the sun.
Moreover, the questions that are raised about the formula and
about the curve become meaningful because they concern the
physical situations. The physical meanings also supply, in
many cases at least, the power to think about the mathematical
problems that are raised, because the mathematics is no more
than a representation of the physics and a means of solving
physical and other problems.
The failure to present the meaning of mathematics is analogous
to teaching students how to read musical notation without
allowing them to play the music. Students might be taught how
to recognize full notes, half notes, sharps, flats, the key, and
how to transpose music from one key to another without ever
hearing any music. But if they do not hear what these various
notations and techniques mean, they will be left with
meaningless and boring skills.
The traditional curricu1um has been faithfully reproduced in
thousands of textbooks. The strongest reaction induced by the
traditional texts is that they are insufferably dull. Most textbook
writers seem to believe that scientific writing must be cold,
spiritless, mechanical and dry. These books have no authors.
They are not only printed by machines; they are written by
machines.
Textbook writers also seem to take inordinate pride in brevity,
which can often be interpreted as incomprehensibility. Reasons
for steps are either not given or given so briefly as to make the
presentation almost useless to the student. Many authors seem
to be saying, “I have learned this materia1 and now I defy you
to learn it.” Brevity in mathematical exposition is the soul of
witlessness and obscurity.
The most disturbing fact about many traditional mathematics
texts is that they lack originality and repeat each other
endlessly. A few thousand arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and
trigonometry texts have been published since 1900. Practically
all of the texts on any one of these subjects contain the same
materia1 and presentation; only the order of the topics is
different.
But there is hope for progress because each contains at least ten
topics, and the number of permutations of ten objects ten at a
time is 3,628,800. It would be difficu1t to estimate how many
trigonometry texts have been written with the justification that
they treat the general angle before the acute angle. One can be
sure, however, that just as many boast of treating the acute
angle before the general angle. The only thing that is acute
about these books is the pain they give the reader.
Are there no variations among these books? There are
variations such as the elementary algebra and the advanced
algebra, the elementary advanced algebra and the advanced
elementary algebra, the half-course and the full course, the
seven-eighths course, and so forth. Here, too, there is hope for
“progress” because there are irrational numbers; hence, we can
look forward to irrational algebra courses.
What is especia1ly disturbing about these books is that many of
the authors are consciously dishonest to their profession. I
asked one professor who had written “umpteen” trigonometries
of the full and partially full type why he included such useless
topics as the solution of oblique triangles by the law of tangents
and the law of half-ang1es. He admitted that these topics are
worthless, but said he included them because the books sell
better. Apparent1y, no matter how many trigonometries a man
may write, not even one can reflect his honest judgment.
I asked another professor, who published a stereotyped college
 11
a1gebra, why he bothered to write such repetitious nonsense.
Oh, he said, I can write the stuff between classes without
having to think about it. Why shouldn’t I do it? Needless to
say, no thinking was evident in the presentation of the material.
Another professor published a book which included some
material that he believed to be unimportant. He admits this in
his preface and then says quite candidly that he included this
material with an eye to the market. Such honest dishonesty!
Those authors who repeat each others topics are in a sense
plagiarizing. But the plagiarism extends beyond that.
Paraphrases of whole sections of material covering many
paragraphs are readily found. One author took whole chapters
from another book with on1y minor changes, acknowledging,
of course, the inspiration of God, Euclid, Newton, and Einstein.
Most traditiona1 mathematics textbooks appear to be
commercial jobs that make a contribution only to the authors’
pocketbooks. The ethics of some teachers, to say nothing of
their mentalities, is evidently in a sad state. The only persons
who can claim any credit for original work in connection with
these books are the publishers’ publicity men, who must think
up good blurbs for the advertisements.
Fairness requires that one mention recent improvements in the
format of mathematics texts. Important formulas are now
enclosed in red boxes. Other texts use overlays of plastic to
show the increasing complexity of a figure as one overlay after
another is superimposed on the origina1 text figure.
Clearly the defects of the traditiona1 curriculum are numerous.
The reliance upon memorization of processes and proofs, the
disparate treatments of algebra and geometry, minor logical
defects, the retention of a few outmoded topics, and the
absence of any motivation or appeal explain why young people
do not like the subject and therefore do not do well in it. Their
dislike is intensified and their difficulties in understanding are
compounded by being asked to read dull, poorly written, and
commercially contrived textbooks.
Certainly reform was called for. The leaders of the new
mathematics movement did not cite all of the above defects.
However, they did point the finger at some of them. So let us
look now at what these people proposed to do and try to
evaluate their effectiveness in improving the teaching of
mathematics.
From Mark Alder: “I am very grateful for the kind
permission of Professor Kline's widow, Mrs. Helen
M. Kline, to use this material on this section of my
website.”
Copyright © Helen M. Kline & Mark Alder 2000
GOOD INTENTIONS GONE BAD
The Philosophical Origins of “The New Math”
Michael Round
Center for autoSocratic Excellence
The story of the rise and fall of the “new math” has been told
so many times, it’s tempting to think of it as a fad occurring
nearly ½ century ago, with little to do with modern
mathematics. Whether or not that’s true, we shall see, but to be
certain we’re reasonably thorough in our understanding of
history, let’s take a brief look.
The New Math, implemented in the 1960s, had noble origins
and good intentions. The 19th and early-20th centuries had
seen the erosion of “certainty” from the once-solid foundations
of math. Euclidean geometry, the calculus, and set theory were
under assault at the ground level for inconsistencies,
contradictions, and non-intuitive results. As a result, a
paradigm shift in mathematics took place, the goal: shore up
the foundations of math.
When the Soviet Sputnik created the USA mathematical /
scientific panic igniting the New Math movement, the above
curriculum paradigm shift was put into action. The strategy
and tactic? In order to achieve good mathematical results, we
must start our kids on the road to certainty at an early age.
Of course, it did not take long to realize we were not achieving
that noble goal with that tactic, and it also did not take long to
realize why not! There was a crucial assumption that had not
been considered: the pedagogy is sound.
We will achieve
good mathematical
results.
Sound principles
The pedagogy is
at an early age is
sound.
good.
We quickly realized the flaw in the “new-math”
implementation plan: our kids were not ready for the material.
It was no surprise. It had taken thousands of years to reveal the
inconsistencies, contradictions, and non-intuitive results in
math, we sought to restructure the math, and we did not give a
moment’s thought to whether this was good – for kids? We
knew, having practiced it in academia for ½ century it was
good for adults, and assumed what’s good for adults is also
good for children. This was the underlying assumption in
judging the pedagogy of the New Math.
This part of the story is well-known.
 12

A less pursued angle of this tragic story is the following Our math is not as
question: “The Sputnik incidence launched the ‘new math’ rigorous as
principles. Why were these the new principles that were believed.
launched?”

As the great mathematician Morris Kline has so well pointed Euclidean

There are other
out, math through the ages had been considered the apex of geometry is the
geometries equally
logical thought and consistency. As in many sciences, when apex of
consistent.
consistency.
issues arose challenging the status quo, the issues are dealt with
on an ad hoc basis, and the underlying philosophy left
unchanged.

However, as Thomas Kuhn points out in The Structure of

Scientific Revolutions, infrequently an anomaly arises
challenging the philosophical status quo, and cannot be
explained away.
THE ORIGINS OF “SOUND PRINCIPLES”
The Geometric Anomaly
Such was the case with Euclidean Geometry. In the creation of
the systematic understanding of geometry, Euclid had sought to
start with sound principles – postulates – and reason
deductively. These postulates were as follows:
1. A straight line may be drawn between any two points;
2. A piece of straight line may be extended indefinitely;
3. A circle may be drawn with any given radius and an
arbitrary center;
4. All right angles are equal;
5. If a straight line crossing two straight lines makes the
interior angles on the same side less than two right angles,
the two straight lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that
side on which are the angles less than the two right angles.
THE ORIGINS OF “SOUND PRINCIPLES”
The Calculus Anomaly
Of course, one issue does not destroy a movement, and such is
the case with geometry. In the 17 th century, the formulation of
the calculus – by Newton and Leibniz – gave rise to a new
method of the analysis of nature. How did this method move
forward? The controversy really is as old as the study of math,
and can be traced, analogically, to the well-known paradoxes of
Zeno.
If I say it’s impossible to fill a cup with water, intuition tells us
that’s nonsense, and, placing the cup under the faucet, the
claim is quickly disproved, as the water reaches the top of the
cup, eventually pouring over.
However, if I point out to you in order to fill the whole cup,
you must first fill ½ the cup. Obviously. However, once ½ the
cup is filled, the cup must again fill the remaining ½ cup ½ the
way. Continuing the process, we see there is an infinite
progression of “one-halves”, getting ever-and-ever closer to a
full cup, but not quite getting to the rim of the cup.

This fifth postulate, the so-called “parallel postulate”, so 100% 100%

Total Amount Poured
differed from the others in clarity, mathematicians throughout 80% 80%
Amount Poured

the ages sought to prove the theorems of geometry without 60% 60%
reference to it. This postulate equated to saying the sum of the 40% 40%
degrees in a triangle equal 180 degrees. 20% 20%

0% 0%
We now know there are other geometries where this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
assumption IS NOT valid – these “non-Euclidean geometries” Pouring Trial
were as consistent as Euclidean geometry.

What has this to do with the calculus? The notion of the

calculus rests on the concept of change over time. We’re
accustomed to averages such as miles / hour, the common
metric being a certain distance traveled over a certain period of
The troubling aspect of this discovery, of course, was the
time. Of course, with stoplights, and reststops, the average
revolution it sparked. After all, it was believed, Euclidean
time does not necessarily refer to the average speed at a
Geometry was believed to be the apex of consistency in a
particular point, but generally over the entire trip.
discipline itself at the apex of consistency – and now, to realize
the foundations were in fact not as solid as believed?
 13
What happens if we want to know what the speed is at a Even
particular point in time? It would seem we would be dividing Integers Numbers
1 → 2
by zero time, because there seems to be no change.
2 → 4
3 → 6
However, certain mathematical manipulations by both Newton 4 → 8
and Leibniz gave rise to right answers, despite the
awkwardness of the “divide by zero” issue.

As with the issue in Euclidean Geometry, this “lack of rigor” There IS a 1-1 correspondence, and therefore, by the definition
troubled the math profession, and consequent issues regarding of set theory, the two sets are equal! Yet this seems
this issue of limits and infinity tore away at the fabric of inconsistent with our everyday reasoning. What’s going on
certainty once covering the profession. here?
Our math is not as
Our math is not as rigorous as
rigorous as believed.
believed.

Inconsistencies
Set theory affords
The calculus between practice
Inconsisties and a rigorous new
and expectation
allows for the look at math.
"divide by zero" arise.
mathematics of
issues exist.
change.

RE-ESTABLISHING CERTAINTY
THE ORIGINS OF “SOUND PRINCIPLES”
It’s hard to imagine what this set of crises did to the
The Set Theory Anomaly
mathematicians in that age. A once-certain profession, faced
with major attacks on the foundations of their subject, had to
In the 19th century, the notion of dealing with mathematics by
rethink what exactly was going on. What would you do if
way of “sets” was seen as a possible method of dealing with the
faced with such a crisis of confidence?
inconsistencies plaguing the once certain profession of
mathematics. Set theory is the mathematical theory of sets, in geometry in calculus in set theory
which represent collections of abstract objects. It encompasses
Inconsistencies
the everyday notions, introduced in primary school, of There are other Inconsistencies
between practice
geometries equally and "divide by
collections of objects, and the elements of, and membership in, consistent. zero" issues exist.
and expectation
such collections. In most modern mathematical formalisms, set arise.
theory provides the language in which mathematical objects are
described.
Our terms and
In this regard, the simple notion of “counting” took on a new
processes lack
look. If one wanted to know if there were enough chairs for rigor.
participants in a conference, for example, one could align each
person with a chair to answer the question. Is there a 1-1 core problem

correspondence between “participants” and “chairs”? If so, the

“sets” are equal.

Intuitively, this notion of “equality” is consistent with our

ordinary experience.
However, let’s extend this idea of “correspondence” and
“equality” a step further. Are there as many even numbers as
there are integers? Of course, the answer is no. But is it?
Using our previous definition of “equality”, we see the
following:
But what is the problem? The lack of logical consistency. It
makes sense, then, to shore up the foundations of the branches
of math via rigorous methods to ensure the result is logical
consistency.
But what constitutes rigor in this regard?
 14
We have a
We have a
Our terms and From the Quote Department
rigorous definition processes are
of terms
rigorous process
of logic.
independent of Quotes from Books and Interviews
(numbers, etc.) application.

Fodder for the Ass

We rigorously
define our
profession.
solution
A PARADIGM SHIFT IN EDUCATION
Is it any wonder there was a concerted effort to change math as
it was once conceived? With the erosion of certainty and the
emergence of logical contradictions, it’s natural to rethink –
rigorously – what exactly the science is. If numbers lie at the
core of the profession, for example, and the results of the 19 th
century application of math yields inconsistencies, it makes
perfect sense to rethink what exactly a number is.
If logical inconsistency lies at the heart of the problem, it
makes sense to rededicate oneself to understanding what
exactly constitutes logical reasoning. Moreover, can a system
of logic be developed and applied at the core of the “new math”
to ensure logical consistency is achieved?
Finally, the fear in any industry is though something may work
in one circumstance, it may fail in another. This belief held as
well for mathematicians at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries.
How does one ensure logical consistency is maintained in all
contexts? We make our mathematical systems independent of
all objects – and simultaneously applicable to all objects!
How was this rigor actually applied?
“Of course the reader who has examined the theorems of
Euclidean geometry may wonder why anyone bothers to prove
some of them … For example, the Epicureans, a school of
Greek philosophers, picked on Euclid’s theorem that the sum of
two sides off a triangle is greater than the third side. Said the
Epicureans, “Any ass knows this theorem. If fodder is placed
at one point and the ass is at another, the ass does not traverse
two sides of a triangle to reach the fodder but goes directly to
it.”
Mathematics and the Physical World
Mistaking Architecture for Education
“Gauss himself wrote elegant, but highly compact, carefully
polished steps. When criticized, he said that no architect leaves
the scaffolding after completing the building. But the fact is
that even excellent mathematicians found the reading of
Gauss’s papers very difficult and the same is true of the
writings of many other mathematicians.
Mathematics and the Physical World
Educational Habitation
“If we are to think correctly in the calculus and avoid serious
errors when the algebraic expressions that represent k/h are not
so simple as in (an early equation), we must understand and
respect the distinction between the limit of a function of h as h
gets smaller and smaller and the value of the function when h is
0. The limit concept is of course a complex and subtle one, and
the way to get to know such an idea is like the way in which
one gets to know a person: one must live with it.
Mathematics and the Physical World

Truth tables Venn Diagrams

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
“Mathematics may be the queen of the sciences and therefore
entitled to royal prerogatives, but the queen who loses touch
with her subjects may lose support and even be deprived of her
realm. Mathematicians may like to rise into the clouds of
abstract thought, but they should, and indeed they must, return
to earth for nourishing food or else die of mental starvation.”
Mathematics and the Physical World

More to come!