What was it like to learn maths at school in the Victorian period? We visited the British Schools Museum in Hitchin to find out.
Noticing the regular movement of the Sun and the stars has led to a desire to measure time. This article for teachers and learners looks at the history of man's need to measure things.
This article gives a brief history of the development of Geometry.
1. In the beginning ...
Knowledge about the possible beginnings of human mental development comes from research on the co-evolution of language and the human brain. The central idea that comes out of this research is that mankind, uniquely, is what is called a 'symbolic species'. That is, we have the ability to make ideas 'visible in the mind'. This means we can create, manage, manipulate and blend images in ways that help us to form new relationships and produce new concepts. We can only speculate on the earliest stages in the development of mathematics but we do have evidence which shows that we have the power to visualise and represent physical objects in our mind. This power is seen in the representations of counting, bartering and building activities of early civilisations. In particular, our perceptions of symmetry seem to have produced many kinds of geometrical representations in different cultures.
In these images, a square pattern has been divided into different areas, making rectangles or triangles.
In the above two images, other shapes have been produced, leading to speculations about relationships between numbers and areas, and it is thought that the elementary number theories of the Pythagoreans might have been generated by images like these [see Note 1 below]. Further manipulation, dissection of squares and rearrangement, leads to images of right-angled triangles and the familiar relationship between numbers and areas. For example:
In modern notation, the problem looks very easy: $$h + \frac{h}{4}=15$$ We begin by using $h=4$ which immediately makes the fraction $\frac{h}{4} = 1$ So the left hand side is $5$, but we need $15$. If by using $4$ we obtain $5$, what do we need to use to get $15$?
Visualising a triangle like this would make the problem much simpler and the ratios could then easily be compared. $$\frac{\mbox{'}h\mbox{'}}{15}=\frac{4}{5}$$ So, for the denominator of the right hand ratio to be $15$, we need to multiply the numerator and denominator of the ratio $\frac{4}{5}$ by $3$.
"If it is desired to combine two squares of different measures, a [rectangular] part is cut off from the larger [square] with the side of the smaller; the diagonal of the cut-off [rectangular] part is the side of the combined square."
"Alternatively if it is desired to combine two squares of different measures, a rectangle is formed with the side of the smaller [square] [as breadth] and that of the larger [as length]; the diagonal of the rectangle [thus formed] is the side of the combined square." These instructions clearly show a knowledge of the 'Pythagorean relation'. The base line for the altar was always East - West and careful and precise interpretation of the instructions enabled the priests to build the falcon 'fire-altar'.
The visual thinking behind the calculation appears to have gone like this: We have the area of a rectangle, $252$; We have the sum of its length and width, $ 32$ (the semi-perimeter); We know from practical experience (see diagram above); that by removing a small (red) square from a larger (blue) square, we can make a rectangle. So, if we make the side of the large square half of $32$; then the area of the large square will be $256$. Now take away the rectangle, (area $252$), and we are left with the small (red) square. Geometrically, this will always work whatever the lengths of the sides concerned. Arithmetically , the problems were arranged so that the numbers used in the calculation always resulted in a perfect (red) square. Many more examples like this have been discovered, and as well as the underlying geometrical visualisation, there is also the clear emergence of an algorithmic process . The Babylonians had established one of the important essential aspects of problem-solving. They had established a method for solving particular types of area problems , and it was this method that was taken over by later generations of scholars and eventually developed into the algorithm we use in classrooms today.
Evidence for this kind of activity is deduced from fragments of writings by the early Pythagoreans. Also, the elementary number theory in Euclid Book VII. Katz (1998) has a section on the Pythagoreans (pp. 48-51)
The dating of early Indian mathematics has always been controversial. As with other civilisations it was basically an oral culture, and what was written down appeared long after it was first conceived. Added to this the Indian scholars wrote on palm leaves that rotted away quite quickly in the humid climate. Documents were copied and copied many times, so we never have the original text and it is virtually impossible to reconstruct the early history of Indian mathematics with any certainty.
Quoted from Kim Plofker's chapter on Indian Mathematics in Katz (2007 p.387).
Both quotations are from the Baudhayana - Sulbasutra (c. 1,000 - 500 BCE) in Kim Plofker's chapter 4 in Katz 2007.
Evidence for this geometrical basis comes from recent research into the language and culture of the period by a group including Jens Hoyrup from Roskilde University in Denmark and Eleanor Robson from Cambridge.
This is my version of the problem using Hoyrup's (1984) Babylonian 'word list'. See also Pedagogical Notes item 5.
The 'Pythagorean' diagram on the right hand grid in section 1 above has a rational area of 5 units, and non-rational sides.
Heath, T. L. (1963) A Manual of Greek Mathematics. Dover (original Oxford University Press, 1931)
'Mal' was Euclid's word for 'wealth' (the unknown).
A Dihram is a unit of currency, still used in the Arab Emirates.
All translations in this section are quoted from Berggren, Chapter 5 in Katz (2007).
Arcavi, A. (2003) The role of visualisation in the learning and teaching of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics 52 (3) 2003 (215-224)