See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235798667

From ‘proofs without words’ to ‘proofs that explain’ in secondary

mathematics

Article  in  Pythagoras · June 2007

DOI: 10.4102/pythagoras.v0i65.92

CITATIONS READS

7 988

2 authors, including:

M. Faaiz Gierdien
Stellenbosch University
32 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Spreadsheets use in math teacher education View project

Ledimtali: CPD View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M. Faaiz Gierdien on 10 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

From ‘proofs without words’ to ‘proofs that explain’ in secondary
mathematics
M Faaiz Gierdien

Stellenbosch University
Email: faaiz@sun.ac.za

Introduction analyse and compare mathematical arguments and

From the mid 1970s onwards in almost every issue proofs” and being able to “demonstrate an
of the undergraduate mathematics journals understanding of proof in local axiomatic systems”
Mathematics Magazine and College Mathematics (Department of Education, 2003: 83). The question
Journal there is at least one ‘proof without words’ becomes, what means are available to align
(Nelsen, 1993). A proof without words can be learners and teachers with these competence
thought of as a ‘proof’ that makes use of visual descriptions? Elsewhere the document mentions
representations, that is, pictures or other visual “mathematical process skills” which include
means to show a mathematical idea, equation or generalising, explaining, describing, observing,
theorem (Casselman, 2000). It does not contain inferring, specialising, justifying, representing,
any words other than literal or numerical symbols refuting and predicting (ibid.: 19). As possible
and geometrical drawings, for example. There is visual processes these mathematical skills can
debate around whether a proof without words stimulate thinking about proofs and also proofs
really qualifies as a proof. It helps the observer see without words. In this regard visualisation is a key
why a particular mathematical statement may be construct which will be explored in this paper. A
true, and also to see how one might begin to go reference to proof also appears in the study of
about proving it true. It may also have an equation series and sequences (ibid.).
or two, arrows or shading in order to guide the The purpose of this paper is to explore an
reader in this process. In it there is a clear epistemic role for visualisation with respect to
emphasis on providing visual clues to the reader in proofs without words in secondary mathematics in
order to stimulate thinking with the eventual goal the current South African education policy context.
of writing a proof. Many proofs without words in Visualisation as process and product can be a
the referred journals are directly related to the means to examining proofs without words by
secondary Mathematics curriculum in South turning them into proofs that explain. In this way
African schools although not exclusively so. students can develop insights and explanations for
Interpreting a proof without words requires the mathematics they encounter in the secondary
explanations that draw on various mathematical curriculum. The proofs without words chosen are
ideas not necessarily evident in the proof without those that show analytic and visual representations
words. When the reader starts to unpack and of series and sequences. In the secondary
explain the diagrams or pictures in the proof curriculum series and sequences are mainly
without words, it can become a ‘proof that represented analytically. It will be shown that a
explains’ as opposed to a ‘proof that proves.’ More thoughtful interpretation and explanation through
needs to be said about the last two notions. Writing visualisation of such proofs without words
explanations for and discussing a suitable proof connects different strands in the bureaucratically
without words can present opportunities to develop stated secondary curriculum found in the policy
insights about and connections between different document (Department of Education, 2003). There
mathematical ideas. These are also ways to is more mathematics embedded and ‘unseen’ in
popularise proof in general in the secondary these proofs without words.
mathematics curriculum (De Villiers, 1990;
Volmink, 1990). Visualisation as process and product
References to proof appear in current South It is difficult to conceptualise a neat division
African policy documents on school mathematics between visualisation as process and product when
reform at the secondary level. For example, we interpret a proof without words. Visualisation
“competence descriptions” for learners by the end as product can be thought of as the proof without
of grade 12 include “being able to critically words or the final picture. On the other hand

Pythagoras 65, June, 2007, pp. 53-62 53

 M Faaiz Gierdien

visualisation as process involves employing proof creator’s visualisation which the reader has
various techniques to understand and to interpret to process. It provides us with cues that make our
the proof without words. Visualisation has a process of visualisation easier. We may not be
special attraction in the case of a proof without instantly convinced of the result. Also, we
words because the reader is drawn ‘to fill in the potentially see how a proof for the geometric series
words’ in order to make the theorem or statement is done. There are non-trivial bits of numerical
in the proof without words true. Literature on manipulations that the reader has to process, for
visualisation sometimes refers to visualising example, interpreting
(Giaquinto, 1993; 1994), visual reasoning ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ 1 ⎞ and ⎛ 1 ⎞2 ⎛ 1 ⎞2 as areas.
⎜ ⎟×⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ×⎜ ⎟
(Hershkowitz, Arcavi, & Bruckheimer, 2001) or ⎝2⎠ ⎝2⎠ ⎝2⎠ ⎝2⎠
simply visualisation (Arcavi, 2003). Many proofs The use of areas is an example of Arcavi’s
without words rely on visual means to (2003) notion of how the reader is attracted to
communicate a mathematical statement. “seeing the unseen” or “filling in the words.” To
Visualisation – as both the product and the process make the statement true we may be attracted to
of creation, interpretation and reflection upon look at the final picture or product.
pictures and images – is gaining increased Visualisation as process in the infinite
popularity in mathematics and mathematics geometric series has its attendant problems,
education (Arcavi, 2003). What we do upon seeing namely, a particularity objection and unintended
a proof without words is process a product. exclusions (Giaquinto, 1993). What is the
Depending on the proof without words, the reader particularity objection in visualisation as process in
can be drawn into “seeing the unseen and perhaps the case of this infinite geometric series? We
also proving,” according to Arcavi (2003). One can cannot do a visualisation process of the geometric
think of interpreting, creating and reflecting as series that goes up to infinity. We can only do a
examples of visualisation as process, which can visualisation process up to a particular number of
also include scribbling notes or diagrams on paper, areas. Visualisation as process thus cannot include
or making gestures and utterances. Interestingly, every area in the infinite geometric series but it
visualisation as product can include explanatory can specify some areas. Also, in the process of
notes that result from interpretation of and visualising the infinite geometric series there are
reflection on a proof without words, in addition to some areas which will be excluded from the
the final picture or proof without words. content of visualising. This is not to say that a
In a proof without words of the infinite precise number of areas is visualised. There will
geometric series be numerical vagueness in the visualisation
2 4 6
⎛1⎞ ⎛1⎞ ⎛1⎞ 1 process, but not so much vagueness that no number
⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ + ... = (see Figure 1),
2 2
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ 2 3 of areas is excluded. For instance, we cannot
Arcavi (2003) argues that a proof without words is visualise 41 specific areas, meaning that there will
(a) neither “without words” nor (b) “a proof.” The be “unintended exclusions” (ibid.). From the way
reader is most likely to decode the picture through Figure 1 is shown we are typically unable to carry
words (a) – either mentally or aloud – and out a visualisation process that includes exactly 41
according to Hilbert's standard for a proof, it must
be “arithmetisable” (b), otherwise it is non-existent
(Hadamard, 1954, in Arcavi, 2003). This explains
the cautious use of “visual proof” in the case of the
infinite geometric series. What is clear is the
controversy around what constitutes a proof. From
the former, we infer that what is seen – or
visualisation as process or product – might actually
be complemented by verbalisation. Hence the
notion of “without words” in proof without words
should not be understood literally.
There is continuum between process and
product interpretations of visualisation which is
illustrated using the proof without words of the
same infinite geometric series. The proof without
words presented in Figure 1 is a product of the Figure 1. A proof without words of the
infinite geometric series

54
 M Faaiz Gierdien

areas. The best we can do is to visualise an Looking at the picture or proof without words we
arrangement of roughly 6 such areas. There will understand why the series has the sums it does.
thus be a problem of unintended exclusions the This picture is not a proof of what the limit of the
more we specify the number of areas. This infinite series is. Implicit in the above are
problem does not negate the use of visualisation as characteristic properties (Steiner, 1978, in Hanna,
process in this infinite geometric series. It does, 1990), which will be discussed, in more detail later
however, pull us in the direction of the final on. This, however, brings us to an important
picture or visualisation as product so that we can distinction between proofs that demonstrate that a
hopefully conclude that the sum to infinity equals theorem or statement is true and proofs that show
1 why a theorem or statement is true. Visualisation as
3. both process and product plays a key role in
Visualisation as process and product in the case turning a proof without words into a proof that
of the infinite geometric series can take us in the explains. How do we distinguish a proof that
direction of analysis. The unseen mathematics in proves from a proof that explains?
Figure 1 is far more than meets the eye. Seeing the
unseen mathematics depends on the reader’s Distinguishing between proofs that prove
insights. By visualising the first few steps in the and proofs that explain
process the reader gets an idea of the common One of Hanna’s (1983; 1990; 1998a; 1998b) major
nature of each step: we divide the large unmarked contributions to literature on the nature of proof in
square into quarters, marks the lower left of these mathematics and mathematics education is a
quarters and leaves the other three unmarked (to be distinction between proofs that prove and proofs
divided into quarters in the next step). A crucial that explain. This distinction has a long and
thought becomes apparent: at each stage there is a interesting history and is stated slightly differently
shading of one of the four squares. The reader has at times. “Verifying” is used when proofs
to come to believe the theorem that the limit of the demonstrate that a theorem or statement is true and
series “clarifying” is used when proofs show why a
2
⎛1 ⎞ ⎛1 ⎞
4
⎛1 ⎞
6
1 . theorem or statement is true (De Villiers, 1990).
⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ + ... = The former has to do with “convincing” or
2
⎝ ⎠ 2
⎝ ⎠ 2
⎝ ⎠ 3
“making certain,” while the latter has to do with
Also, it is clear that at no particular stage of the
“explaining.” This distinction is quite important.
division of the squares do the areas of the shaded
1 For example, the mathematician Bolzano (in
parts of the figure add up to give 3 . It also seems Hanna, 1990) makes a similar distinction “making
clear that no area at the top right-hand corner is so certain” (gewissmachung) and “building a
small that it will not eventually “fill up” the open foundation” (begründung). “Making certain” and
space. There will be unintended exclusions. One “building a foundation” are synonymous with a
1 proof that proves or verifies and a proof that
can think of 3 as the least upper bound of the
explains or clarifies, respectively. Hanna (1990)
sequence. The truth of the theorem can be inferred uses “explain” when a proof reveals, and makes
from this, taking it as known that a monotonic use of the mathematical ideas that motivate it and
increasing function sequence bounded above hence refers to an “explanatory proof.” Such a
converges to its least upper bound. The arguments proof focuses on “building a foundation” or
presented here take us into the realm of elementary clarifying, and is consonant with Volmink’s (1990)
real analysis, involving the limit of an infinite notion of proof as a means of communication. For
process (Giaquinto, 1994). To get to see why the example, in classrooms, teaching and explaining a
1 proof becomes a form of discourse in which
series has a limit of 3 , the reader’s eye has to
visualisation as process and product can lead to
digest several pieces of numerical information that insight and connections among mathematical ideas.
are in the picture. This would entail seeing and On the other hand, a proof that proves does not
1
eventually proving that the limit of the series is 3 illuminate the appearance of particular symbols,
through real analysis. On the other hand the reader whether literal or numerical, in a proof.
1 Hanna (1998a) cites mathematical induction as
can simply see or trust that 3 of the area of the the example of a proof that proves or verifies. We
outer square is being shaded. have to unpack mathematical induction by firstly
According to Giaquinto (1994) there is insight examining induction and then mathematical
garnered from the picture of such an infinite series. induction. Induction is the process of discovering

55
 M Faaiz Gierdien

general laws by the observation of and Going through this exercise we end up being
combination of particular instances. It aims at certain that the statement is true. It is not difficult
finding regularity and coherence behind to see how all these steps are about convincing and
observations. How do we insert a mathematical making certain (gewissmachung).
aspect to observations done via induction? A curious student or learner following the steps
According to Pólya (1945/1988) there is in in a proof via mathematical induction will certainly
mathematics a higher authority than observation have questions, such as why is there a 1 in the
2
and induction: rigorous proof. This is where 2
mathematical induction comes in. It is to the statement, 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n = n + n ?
mathematical aspects of mathematical induction 2 2
that we turn to next. This question calls for a ‘proof that explains.’ A
Pólya (1954) lists several steps in mathematical visual representation or proof without words of this
induction before its actual technique. These are the statement is shown in Figure 2.
inductive phase, the demonstrative phase, To answer the question about the 12 the student
examining transitions and, finally, the technique of will have to use visualisation processes such as
mathematical induction. During the inductive describing and observing a triangle and blocks or
phase we suspect that a particular mathematical square units in order to interpret the proof
relationship, theorem or statement is true. Driven constructor’s product or proof without words.
by what we suspect, we formulate a conjecture Describing and observing can include ‘filling in
about the mathematical statement which we test for the words’ or verbalising and ‘seeing the unseen.’
particular cases to see if it is true. We check to see It becomes clear that processing a visualisation of
if the conjecture is true for several cases and we the arithmetic (Giaquinto, 1993) in the statement is
ask how we can test the conjecture more supported geometrically. Some of the seen and
efficiently. During the demonstrative phase we unseen mathematics is the area of a triangle with a
examine whether the conjecture passes a severe height of length n units and a base of length n
test. This is done by taking what is supposedly true 2
units. This area turns out to be n .
to what is incontestably true and finally 2
consequently true. The missing area to be added is 12 multiplied by
2
n n
The statement 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n = + n, the number of n square units. These are the
2 2
shaded half squares, n . It should be noted that the
which appears in secondary mathematics will be 2
considered. During the inductive phase there is an proof without words is about a general theorem in
examination of several numerical values, where we arithmetic: for all positive integers n, the sum of
can tabulate the results for n = 1, 2, 3, …. For the first n positive integers is a half of n2 + n. The
example, we would end up with a conjecture that proof without words has a particular number of
n2 n squares, meaning that in the visualisation processes
1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n = + there will be unintended exclusions. A similar
2 2
is probably true.
Proving this truth would involve n2 n
1 + 2 + 3 + …+ n = +
testing whether the conjecture is 2 2
true. In the demonstrative phase we n2 n
increase our doubts by first, ∴ 1 + 2 + 3 + …+ n + (n + 1) = + + (n + 1)
2 2
assuming that it is supposedly true.
The conjecture is then shown to be n 2 n 2n 2
= + + +
incontestably true and then 2 2 2 2
consequently true. Examining the n 2 + 2n + 1 n + 1
transition from n to n + 1, is the last = +
2 2
reasoning to conclude that
n2 n (n + 1) + (n + 1)
2

1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n = + is true =
2 2 2 2
for all integers. To summarise, see Box 1. The transition from supposedly true to incontestably
Box 1. true, to consequently true, for all positive integers

56
 M Faaiz Gierdien

proofs that explain. Central to this is seeking

characterising properties in the proofs without
words. Steiner (1978: 143) and Hanna (1990: 10) –
who cites Steiner – characterise an explanatory
proof as follows:
…an explanatory proof makes reference to a
n characterising property on an entity or
structure mentioned in the theorem, such that
from the proof it is evident that the result
depends on the property. It must be evident,
that is, that if we substitute in the proof a
different object of the same domain, the
n theorem collapses; more, we should be able to
see as we vary the object, how the theorem
Figure 2. Visual representation or proof changes in response.
without words

point was raised in the case of the infinite For example, what characteristic properties are
geometric series. Alternately, we can find the area entailed in proofs without words of the following
of a square of side length n, halving this area ( n 2 ) two statements?
2 n(n + 1) n(n + 1)( n + 2)
and then adding 1
2
of n blocks to yield n + n , to 1 + 3 + 6 + ... + = and
2 2 2 6
find 1 + 2 + 3 + …+ n. There is thus a geometrical 2
⎛ n(n + 1) ⎞
justification in terms of the area of a triangle that 13 + 2 3 + 33 + ... + n 3 = ⎜ ⎟ ?
⎝ 2 ⎠
n2 n
explains the statement, 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n = + Also, how do we go about finding the
2 2 characterising properties in proofs without words
which includes an explanation for the appearance that motivate, explain and compel the truths of the
of 12 . statements? Much of the answer lies with Chinese
There are contrasts between proofs that prove mathematicians for whom a proof consisted of
and proofs that explain in the case of the said “any explanatory note, which served to convince or
mathematical statement. In the entire proof that to enlighten” (Siu, 1993: 346). They practiced
proves via mathematical induction there is no “proof as explanation” in ways that were very
translation back and forth between different different from Greek mathematicians' axiomatics
representations. Only a numerical or analytic and deductive proofs, because these had not
representation is used. In contrast, the proof that reached them (Hanna, 1998b). Explanatory notes
explains uses far more mathematics with the hope as instances of visualisation as process and product
of bringing about understanding. Here there is the thus play an important role in searching for
possibility that the student will develop insights characteristic properties.
depending on how his or her visualisation as How can we explain each of the symbols in
process and product interacts and unfolds. The Figure 3, 1 ( n + 1) 3 − 1 ( n + 1) = n( n + 1)( n + 2) , the
mathematical statement is about a general 6 6 6
arithmetic theorem which is proved via mathematical statement for the sum of n triangular
mathematical induction, for all positive integers n. numbers?
In contrast the proof that explains with its Visualisation as product in the form of a proof
geometric justification makes use of the area of a without words showing the sum of n triangular
particular triangle, although the height and base of numbers is shown in Figure 3. The triangular
the triangle is stated as general, namely, ‘n’. More numbers – 1, 3, 6, … , n(n + 1) – are represented
needs to be said about proving and explaining with 2
respect to proofs without words. geometrically as the cubes in the layers t1, t2, t3…,
tn respectively. The cubes forming the triangular
Prove and explain numbers at each stage are arranged in a way where
So far it is evident that visualisation as process and they form three-dimensional objects, which
product plays an important role in turning suitable suggests that volume will come into play. In
proofs without words into explanatory proofs or uncovering the characteristic properties of this

57
 M Faaiz Gierdien

Figure 3. Proof without words: sum of triangular numbers (from Nelsen, 2005)
proof without words, the reader’s eye is guided by slices are shaded. The pattern continues where
the visualisation in the arrangement of the three such slices are shaded for the third triangular
triangular numbers as cubes and the equal signs number, and so on.
ending with the generalised pyramid of height In the second row of the arrangement in
(n+1) units and base of area 12 (n + 1)2 square units. Figure 3, the shaded pyramids are turned upwards
This forms a carefully assembled chain of to a generalised pyramid of height (n + 1), with a
reasoning and qualifies as a “good mathematical halved base which is explained by the 16 . The full
illustration” (Casselman, 2000) that entices the volume of a cubic arrangement of triangular
reader to visualise the processes that make the numbers of side length (n+1) is therefore (n+1)3.
mathematical statement true. In the case of summing the triangular numbers, we
Where does 61 come from? In the third are only interested in 16 of the volume. The extra
arrangement of the triangular number as cubes, in
volumes of 16 of 1 cubic unit of which there will be
Figure 3, one sixth of the volume of the top small
cube is shaded. A small cube on its own will (n+1) have to be subtracted. This illuminates the
consist of 3 small pyramids having the same 1 1
line ( n + 1) 3 − ( n + 1) .
height. This is what Calculus tells us, namely, the 6 6
volume of a pyramid having the same height Obtaining the right-hand side of the statement
1 n ( n + 1)( n + 2 ) is a matter of factoring. As in the
V = (area of base × height).
3 6
The base, however, is halved, meaning that the previous cases the proof without words contains
volume of the shaded part of the cube becomes unintended exclusions because it aims at drawing
1 (area of base × height). the reader into seeing a generalised arithmetic
V=
6 theorem. Proofs without words for the statement
This is indicated by the shaded part in the top, 2
⎛ n(n + 1) ⎞
small cube, which forms the first triangular 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n = ⎜
3 3 3 3
⎟
number. In the second triangular number two such ⎝ 2 ⎠

58
 M Faaiz Gierdien

entail characteristic properties that are 1 + (2 + 4 + 2) + (3 + 6 + 9 + 6 + 3) +

combinatorial and geometric in nature (see Figures … n + 2n + 3n + ... + n 2 + ... + 3n + 2n + n .
4 and 5). Non-trivial bits of algebraic manipulation will
have to be done to show that any L shape
Suggestion 1: combinatorial proof without analytically represented as
words
n + 2n + 3n + ... + n 2 + ... + 3n + 2n + n
The combinatorial proof takes its name from the 2
combinations of the sum of positive integers sums to n(n ) .
starting with 1 (see Figure 4). By examining the Interestingly, these bits are not visualised at all.
combinatorial proof the reader can be encouraged The L shapes sums are as follows:
into visualisation processes such as ‘seeing the 1 = 1(1)
unseen’ or ‘filling in the words.’ On the left hand 2 + 4 + 2 = 2(1 + 2 + 1)
side (Figure 4), there is the sum of the positive 3 + 6 + 9 + 6 + 3 = 3(1 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 1).
integers in the first row beginning with 1 up to n. This generalises as set out in Box 2.
In the second
row, each of
these integers is n + 2n + 3n + ... + n 2 + ... + 3n + 2n + n = n(1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n) + n(1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n − 1)
multiplied by 2.
⎛ n(n + 1) n(n − 1) ⎞
In the third row, = n⎜ + ⎟
each of the ⎝ 2 2 ⎠
integers in the
first row is Box 2. Generalising for a combinatorial proof
multiplied by 3.
This pattern continues. The last two rows on the ⎛ n(n + 1) n(n − 1) ⎞
left-hand side can be factorised and reduced to the Manipulating n⎜ + ⎟ yields
⎝ 2 2 ⎠
following:
n ⎛ n(n + 1) + n(n − 1) ⎞
(1 + 2 + 3 + … + n) × ( ∑i ) which becomes n⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠
i =1
n n
⎛n +n+n −n⎞
2 2
( ∑ i )× ( ∑ i ) . On the right hand side of = n⎜ ⎟
⎜ 2 ⎟
i =1 i =1
⎝ ⎠
Figure 4 the combinations of numbers as indicated
are added in the following way: = n(n 2 )

1 2 3 . . . n 1 2 3 . . . n
+ 2 4 6 . . . 2n + 2 4 6 . . . 2n
+ 3 6 9 . . . 3n + 3 6 9 . . . 3n
+ . . . . . . . + . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
+ n 2n 3n . . . n + n 2n 3n . . . n2
n n n n
= ∑i + 2 ∑ i + 3 ∑ i + … + n ∑i
i =1 i =1 i =1 i =1
= 1(12) + 2(2)2 + … + n(n)2
n n

=( ∑i ) 2 = ∑i
i =1
3

i =1
2
n(n + 1) ⎞
= ⎛⎜ ⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠
Figure 4. Suggestion 1 – combinatorial proof (adapted from Pouryoussefi, 1989)

59
 M Faaiz Gierdien

The previous manipulation is a deductive proof arithmetical theorem about all positive integers
that shows that (Giaquinto, 1994) as compared to the
n + 2n + 3n + ... + n 2 + ... + 3n + 2n + n = n(n 2 ) combinatorial proof in suggestion 1. The problem
The combinatorial proof without words, in fact, of the unintended exclusions does not support a
uses a result from a previous proof without words negative view of the utility of visualisation
about consecutive integers that was discussed processes which are geometric in this instance. The
connection between ‘series and sequences’ and the
n2 n
earlier, namely: 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n = + geometry of the areas of squares are not surprising
2 2 because we have such a connection for summing
By focusing on these combinations of the the integers 1 + 2 + 3 + …+ n as we saw earlier on.
numbers, we gain a sense of the truth of the
original statement, namely:
2
Implications for teaching
⎛ n( n + 1) ⎞ The ideas discussed in this paper have implications
1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n = ⎜
3 3 3 3
⎟
⎝ 2 ⎠ for what might happen in teaching. Each of the
proofs without words became proofs that explain
Suggestion 2: geometric proof without words via visualisation as process and product. The latter
In the geometric proof without words, a focus on is therefore a means to align policy statements
the area of a square of side length compels the about learners’ competence descriptions with
truth in the original statement with some respect to proof. Recall that learners have to be
qualification (see Figure 5). The reader’s attention able to critically analyse and compare mathe-
can be directed to visualising the area of a square matical arguments and proofs.
with a side length (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5), or 5(5 + 1) . So what might the teacher do? He or she should
2 encourage learners to do the explaining when
This is a particular side length meaning that the poring over a proof without words. They should be
particularity objection mentioned earlier may be encouraged to ‘fill in the words’ and to try to ‘see
applicable. The area of the square is the unseen’ mathematics through visualisation.
2 2
⎛ 5(5 + 1) ⎞ and not ⎛ n ( n + 1) ⎞ . They could do so collectively or individually.
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ Applicable here are visualisation processes such as
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ 2 ⎠
This means that there are unintended exclusions in generalising, observing, inferring, representing,
the geometric proof without words. This does not predicting, describing through writing down what
mean that our visualising experience cannot be in is observed and verbalising collectively and
the direction of a general arithmetical or individually. Note that that these processes are in
mathematical statement as in this case. The area concert with the Department of Education’s
inferred in the geometric proof is not stated as an “mathematical process skills” according to the
South African policy document for
secondary mathematics (2003: 19). Learners
1 2 3 4 5 could record their utterances or
verbalisation on the sheet containing the
2 4 6 8 10 proof without words. This would be the
product of their visualisation in addition to
3 6 9 12 15 the proof constructor’s proof without words
which they will be interpreting and
explaining. The teacher must explicitly tell
learners that any proof without words is a
4 8 12 16 20 proof constructor’s final product that they
have to process. The teacher would have the
challenging task of orchestrating a
discussion that has the goal of linking
learners’ visualisation process and product
with the proof without words that they are
5 10 15 20 25 examining.
What is gained by learners explaining
what they see in a proof without words?
Figure 5. Suggestion 2 – geometric proof They might see how mathematical ideas in
(adapted from Pouryoussefi,1989) the secondary curriculum are related

60
 M Faaiz Gierdien

through different representations. Who would have If we are to align learners’ competence
thought that a proof without words of a compact descriptions with respect to proof then we must in
statement such as our teaching aim for a level of proof that explains.
n2 n The deductive mechanisms of mathematical
1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n = + induction and deductive proof do not have the goal
2 2
of mathematical understanding (Hanna, 1983;
– on series and sequences – can be explained via
1990).
the area of a triangle, or that an analytic
representation such as
n(n + 1) n(n + 1)(n + 2) Concluding remarks
1 + 3 + 6 + ... + =
2 6 This paper has shown that visualisation as both
can be explained using the volume of a pyramid? process and product can play an epistemic role in
They could learn from the insights that fellow changing selected proofs without words into proofs
learners present during explaining. Here the that explain. It can be a means to help learners to
teacher plays a critical role because he or she will critically analyse and compare mathematical
have to figure out what learners are saying in arguments and proofs at the secondary level. What
relation to what they ‘see” and ‘don’t see.’ A broad has to be mentioned is the debate around the role
base of knowledge which is a prerequisite for of visualisation itself in the learning of
mathematical insight (Hanna, 1983) could be mathematics. Sfard (1998) cites a prominent
gained by explaining through visualisation as member of the mathematics community who states
process and product. In a proof that proves, that visualisation is not mathematics. The
learners would not be able to come up with possibility of the “devaluation of visualisation”
explanations for the appearance of 12 or a 16 as in (Presmeg, 1997) is therefore likely to permeate
Figure 3. right to the classroom, curriculum materials and
In a proof without words what could be gained teacher education, according to Arcavi (2003).
by the explanation itself? The explanation can Also, there are cognitive difficulties around
certainly help in terms of Bolzano’s “building a visualisation. In simplistic terms the issue raised
foundation” (begründung) (in Hanna, 1990). Any reads as follows: is ‘visual’ easier or more
explanation itself, however, will have to contend difficult? We saw the cognitive demand was
with unintended exclusions and particularity certainly high in turning the combinatorial proof
objections as shown earlier. In the first proof without words of
2
without words in Figure 1, ⎛ n(n + 1) ⎞
2 4 6 1 + 2 + 3 + ... + n = ⎜
3 3 3 3
⎟
⎛1⎞ ⎛1⎞ ⎛1⎞ 1 ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ + ... =
⎝2⎠ ⎝2⎠ ⎝2⎠ 3
into a proof that explains. In fact, it depends on a
it is not possible to exercise visualisation as previous proof without words. Learners would
process that goes to infinity. Furthermore, the last need to attain flexible and competent translation
three proofs without words (Figure 3) are about back and forth between visual and analytic
general arithmetic theorems or series, namely, the representations. Learners working on their
sum of consecutive positive integers starting with competences would thus have to be ready for long-
1, the sum of consecutive triangular numbers winded, non-linear and even tortuous processes
starting with 1 and the sum of consecutive cubes (Schoenfeld, Smith & Arcavi, 1993). Last but not
starting with 1. As ‘informal proofs,’ the proofs least, a difficulty arises from the fact that the
without words discussed highlight the slippage proofs without words in this paper were taken from
from dealing with specific numbers to dealing with mathematics journals associated with tertiary or
infinity and general arithmetic theorems. higher education. In teaching proofs that explain
Explanations must take this slippage into account. words via visualisation in secondary schools there
Learners might want to know whether there is will be the inevitable “didactical transposition”
another method to deal with the problems of (Chevallard, 1985). There will be a transformation
unintended exclusions and particularity objections. of the knowledge associated with changing proofs
Would this pave the way for proofs that prove? without words into proofs that explain. By its very
What could done in the case of the learner who nature this process linearises, compartmentalises
cannot ‘see’ the deductive proof for and possibly also algorithmetises knowledge,
n + 2n + 3n + ... + n 2 + ... + 3n + 2n + n = n(n 2 ) ? thereby stripping it of any rich interconnections
This deductive proof does not ‘explain’. (Arcavi, 2003).

61
 M Faaiz Gierdien

Acknowledgement Nelsen, R. B. (1993). Proof Without Words.

I would like to thank Dr Helen Chick for providing Washington DC: The Mathematical Association
insightful feedback to an earlier draft of this paper. of America.
Nelsen, R. B. (2005). Proof Without Words: Sum
References of Triangular Numbers. Mathematics
Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual Magazine, 78(3), 231.
representations in the learning of mathematics. Pólya, G. (1954). Patterns in Plausible Reasoning
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 215- (Vol. I & II). Princeton, NJ: Princeton
241. University Press.
Casselman, B. (2000). Pictures and proofs. Notices Pólya, G. (1945; 2nd edition, 1988). How to Solve
of the American Mathematical Monthly, 47(10), It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method.
1257-1266. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chevallard, Y. (1985). La transposition didactique Pouryoussefi, F. (1989). Proof Without Words.
du savoir savant au savoir enseigné. Grenoble, Mathematics Magazine, 62(5), 323.
France: La Penseé Sauvage. Presmeg, N. (1997). Generalization using imagery
Department of Education. (2003). National in mathematics. In L. English (Ed.),
Curriculum Statement Grades 10-12 (General): Mathematical Reasoning. Analogies,
Mathematics. Pretoria: Department of Metaphors and Images (pp 299–312). Mahwah,
Education. NJ: Erlbaum.
De Villiers, M. (1990). The role and function of Schoenfeld, A.H., Smith, J. & Arcavi, A. (1993).
proof in mathematics. Pythagoras, 24, 17-24. Learning: the microgenetic analysis of one
Giaquinto, M. (1993). Visualizing in arithmetic. student’s evolving understanding of a complex
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.),
53(2), 385-395. Advances in Instructional Psychology, Vol. 4
Giaquinto, M. (1994). Epistemology of visual (pp 55–176). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
thinking in elementary real analysis. The British Sfard, A. (1998). A mathematician’s view of
Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 45(3), research in mathematics education: an interview
789-813. with Shimshon A. Amitsur. In A. Sierpinska &
Hanna, G. (1983). Rigorous Proof in Mathematics J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), MathematicsEducation as a
Education. Toronto: OISE Press. Research Domain: A Search for Identity. An
Hanna, G. (1990). Some pedagogical aspects of ICMI study (pp 445–458). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
proof. Interchange, 21(1), 6-13. Siu, M. K. (1993). Proof and pedagogy in ancient
Hanna, G. (1998a). Proofs that prove and proofs China: Examples from Liu Hui's commentary
that explain. Proceedings of the 13th Inter- on Jiu Zhang Suan Shu. Educational Studies in
national Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics, 24 (4), 345-357.
Mathematics Education (pp 45-51). Paris: Steiner, M. (1978). Mathematical explanation.
PME. Philosophical Studies, 34, 135-151.
Hanna, G. (1998b). Proof as explanation in Volmink, J.D. (1990). The nature and role of proof
geometry. Focus on Learning Problems in in mathematics education. Pythagoras, 23, 7-
Mathematics, 20 (2-3), 4-13. 10.
Hershkowitz, R., Arcavi, A., & Bruckheimer, M.
(2001). Reflections on the status and nature of
visual reasoning – the case of the matches.
International Journal of Mathematical
Education in Science and Technology, 32(2),
255-265.

“In order to translate a sentence from English into French two things are necessary.
First, we must understand thoroughly the English sentence. Second, we must be
familiar with the forms of expression peculiar to the French language. The situation is
very similar when we attempt to express in mathematical symbols a condition
proposed in words. First, we must understand thoroughly the condition. Second, we
must be familiar with the forms of mathematical expression.”

George Pólya

62

View publication stats