• Journal for History of Mathematics
• /
• v.33 no.6
• /
• pp.327-343
• /
• 2020

This study investigate philosophical discussions related to the Zeno's paradoxes in order to derive the mathematics educational implications. The paradox of Zeno's motion is sometimes explained by the calculus theories. However, various philosophical discussions show that the resolution of Zeno's paradox by calculus is not a real solution, and the concept of a continuum which is composed of points and the real number continuum may not coincide with the physical space and time. This is supported by the fact that the hyperreal number system of nonstandard analysis could be another model of a straight line or time and that an alternative explanation of Zeno's paradox was possible by the hyperreal number system. The existence of two different theories of the continuum suggests that teachers and students may not have the same view of the continuum. It is also suggested that the real world model used in school mathematics may not necessarily match the student's intuition or mathematical practice, and that the real world application of mathematics theory should be emphasized in education as a kind of 'correspondence.'

• School Mathematics
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.491-502
• /
• 2014

This paper analyzed pre-service teachers' justification of $0.99{\cdots}$=1 from their disproof of $0.99{\cdots}$ <1. Some pre-service teachers thought of the difference between $0.99{\cdots}$ and 1 as an infinitesimal. On the contrary, the others claimed that the difference between $0.99{\cdots}$ and 1 was zero as the standard real, but were content with their intuitive justifications. The pre-service teachers' limitation revealed in the process of disproving $0.99{\cdots}$ <1 can be closely related to the orthodox view: the standard real number system is the only absolutely true number system. The existence of nonstandard real number system in which $0.99{\cdots}$ is less than 1, shows that the plain question of whether or not $0.99{\cdots}$ equals 1, cannot be properly answered by common explanations of textbooks or teachers' intuitive justification.