Regards,

Ewan Delanoy

Criticism on the paper “A new proof of Szemerédi’s theorem”
at http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/papers.html :

In the proof of lemma 2.3. it is stated that “the congruence classes
can be partitioned into sets $P_j$ of consecutive elements
with every $P_j$ of cardinality between
$\lceil st/2N \rceil$ and $\lfloor st/N\rfloor$”. This fails when
the congruence class has odd cardinality and
when both those bounds are equal to 2 (when
$r=20,s=50,N=60$ for example).

If you take all the mathematics that school children encounter the axiomatic system is vast — at least from a child’s perspective. It also seems pointless (to the child) — if you are totally at ease with intuitive arithmetic why bother with dry, meaningless axioms? (Of course properly motivated adults, and some children, get to see the point — but can, or should, most children?)

You make a good point with Old Maths = Lengthy Symbolic Algorithms. But Dehaene wants to remove that aspect of Old Math. So instead of ‘long division’, or even learning the multiplication tables, he suggests — use the calculator.

I’m not sure whether it is you or Dehaene who is attributing this reasoning to Bourbaki. But in any case, it is an unfair attribution. Bourbaki was concerned with professional mathematics, not K-12 educational psychology.

Evolution never prepared it, however, for the task of ingurgitating vast systems of axioms, nor of applying lengthy symbolic algorithms.”

Lengthy symbolic algorithms = “Old Math” par excellence.

As for “vast systems of axioms”, what is the point of an abstract axiomatic presentation unless the axioms are simple, and few in number?

“If educational psychologists had paid enough attention to the primacy of intuition over formal axioms … a breakdown without precedent in the history of mathematics might have been avoided.”

“In the 1970s … a new mathematical curriculum was designed that imposed a heavy burden of obscure axioms and formalisms on pupils. “

Bourbaki reasoned: “why let pupils lose precious years solving simple, concrete arithmetic problems, when abstract group theory summarizes all such knowledge in a much more concise and rigorous way?”

Answer: “The child’s brain … is a structured organ that acquires facts only insofar as they can be integrated into its previous knowledge. It is well adapted to the representation of continuous quantities and to their mental manipulation in an analogical form. Evolution never prepared it, however, for the task of ingurgitating vast systems of axioms, nor of applying lengthy symbolic algorithms.” (p241)