Pablo-Zachary Minguez Lumsden

1007905769
MAT246H

MAT246 Reflection

Part 1: My journey

Report on approaches to knowledge:

In online quiz 1 I ranked the approaches to knowledge in this order from strongest to
weakest: Intuitive, Active, and Passive. I think that throughout this course I have been able to
strengthen all approaches to knowledge. In many ways these three approaches are interlinked
because of the nature of knowledge itself. I shall begin with a discussion on my previously
ranked weakest approach passive knowledge.

To say that my passive knowledge has increased is an understatement. The number of new
theories I have learned is plentiful. But what is most useful is the new connections I have
been able to create between these theories with the previous passive knowledge I possessed. I
know see myself understanding elementary concepts from high school and even primary
school to a much higher degree than before. And it is with these new connections and
perspectives that I have been able to consolidate my mathematical knowledge greatly.

My active knowledge has also improved throughout the course. Active knowledge concerns
methods within mathematics. These methods exist in virtue of axioms and properties of
numbers. Learning these methods has provided me with insight into these axioms and
properties that naturally has strengthened my passive knowledge. For instance, the
application of WOP and induction inherently relies on the properties and axioms of natural
numbers. Since we can apply these methods for theories, I am able to further consolidate my
knowledge of the properties of natural numbers. Therefore, active knowledge is like ‘playing’
with mathematics.

Lastly, the intuitive approach to knowledge. I ranked this as my highest initially. My intuition
of mathematics has been greatly improved through my improvement in the other two
categories. Intuition is the bypass of a structured and logical system to a correct conclusion,
without recognizing that one did not bypass the structured and logical system at all. This is
why I have been able to strengthen my intuition with the other two approaches. Tangibility of
concepts and methods in mathematics is essential when concepts become more complex and
entangled with each other. Once one has learned a single theory, then intuition may began
operating. I have seen my intuition about problems become stronger as the course has passed.
Solutions and questions have become more predictable in their posing but also in their
solutions.

Course Objectives:
I am going to touch upon the two course objectives that I mentioned I would like to improve
or believed would be of importance in ‘my journey’ in Online quiz 1. I will touch upon
another that had an impact on me.

Firstly, I mentioned presentation/communication. I quickly noticed that an organized

presentation of a proof was conducive to better proofs. If one can ‘set up’ the proof first,
laying out what the variables, what type of numbers these variables are, what the prompt
wants us to show; then one sets themselves up for success. I found that trying to tackle the
proof head on, without even organizing or planning beforehand, often led to time wasting
(returning to the prompt many times, ‘to figure out what is wanted’) and even forgetting facts
or lemmas that could be easily introduced to aid in solving the proof more efficiently.

Secondly, I mentioned critical reading. Critical reading became more important throughout
the course. Initially, facts and proofs are much more intuitive because they are more
elementary. The natural numbers is a set that is intuitive to handle because it is the set used in
‘everyday life’. Concepts that I hadn’t yet learned, like modular arithmetic required the level
attention that is required when learning a new language. Yes, we understand the symbols
(numbers), but the relations and properties are novel. Thus, they require more attention and
caress (that is, ‘playing’ with them more).

Lastly, Student Centered Learning. Learning that is not illusive is knowledge that once
assimilated can be applied in an interdisciplinary manner. Or, at least, this is how I view it. I
think about the methods and theories I have learnt and how I may apply these outside of this
course. Evidently, there is direct application. I will be able to apply what I learnt about in
complex numbers to the complex variables course 334. But this is not personal. I have been
able to produce a much deeper understanding of concepts by applying them to domains that
are radically different. How can I use the skills learnt solving Diophantine equations to solve
profit/sales problems in economics? It is this type of pondering that I believe truly has made
me assimilate concepts to a deeper level. This is student learning.

Mathematical maturity:

I possess more knowledge than before and thus my ability to create connections with other
mathematical knowledge outside of the course and discipline has heightened. My
mathematical maturity when it came to proof building was minute before I started the course,
therefore improvement in this area has been great. Novel proofs are always a challenge
because they highlight the pull-push of properties and facts versus methods. That is, some
novel proofs require the extension of a theory to a new lemma, others require nuances of
methods to be solved.

Part 2: Feedback

I strongly believe that this course should be taught in first year. If we want mathematics to be
a system of axioms and properties that we build up from, this course antecedes algebra and
calculus. The number of concepts is grand and can be managed in half a year, but I believe
would resonate to a much larger degree with students if given an entire year. I think that
engaging with personal objectives across an entire year is more reasonable and more growth
could be expected within each student. Perhaps more qualitative assignments should be
introduced, a sort of ‘exploration’ into mathematics. If one wants to learn mathematical
knowledge, this course is ideal. But for students that deal with other courses and a life full of
goals and aspirations that go beyond a single course, it is too much. That is why, my sincere
suggestion is to extend the class to a full year.

Part 3: Making Connections

This course is like building a skyscraper. First, there is the foundation, natural numbers ergo
the numbers we use in everyday life. Then, the trichotomy principle and the successor
function. We extract many lemmas and successive theories. These serve as what fills the
ground with something. Here we begin to see and envision what the skyscraper could be.

We then learn methods of proofs like WOP and induction which follow directly from natural
numbers. This is learning how to make cement and to stack bricks on top of one and another
to build a wall. We then introduce the idea of divisibility. Divisibility naturally occurs from us
wanting to know, for instance, how many bricks might fit into a certain frame or wall.

Next we learn of prime numbers. That is, we specify our knowledge of natural numbers. Here
we realize that even though every consecutive number is just another cog in the successor
function machine; relations and patterns between numbers are rich and plentiful. Canonical
factorization further magnifies the intricate nature of relations between natural numbers. A
beautiful theory that unifies the natural numbers. It stands to say that there is perhaps
something more at play than merely symbols. The skyscraper is slowly taking form.

Modular arithmetic is the bridge between divisibility, natural numbers, and the integers.
Modular arithmetic places numbers in a new domain. Where successive numbers in mod m,
exist every multiple of m. In this way we discovered the mod multiplication tables and the
interesting permutations these had when we had prime mods. The direct relationship between
formulating divisibility problems as modular arithmetic was neat too.

Throughout my process in learning these new concepts and the many that followed as well, I
notice that I better understood and consolidated prior concepts with new ones.

For instance, when dealing with sets of numbers larger than the natural numbers I really
understood why induction and WOP only worked with the set of natural numbers. That is, it
wouldn’t be possible to find a least element within any set that isn’t the natural numbers.
With some new concepts I noticed the opposite effect. For example, with Fermat, Euler, and
Wilson’s theorems I returned to queries about prime numbers. Why where these theorems
specific to primes, could it be related to some property that I’ve overlooked before?

Like I mentioned in the earlier paragraphs, it was helpful to think about some of the material
in an interdisciplinary manner to better assimilate it. I found it very useful to think about the
application of several theorems like Diophantine equations to economics.

Although I have already taken MAT334, the complex variables course, it was useful to revisit
the content. Especially in virtue of the material on Greek constructions and extensions of
fields. I hadn’t realized that the roots of unity perfectly presented polygons because in
MAT334 we were more concerned with an algebraic understanding of the roots.