On Mathematical Warrants: Proof Does Not Always Warrant, and a Warrant May Be Other Than a Proof

By M. Rodd. 2000

60 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Students' understandings of logical implication (2002, methodology): “…that proofs must be general, they still frequently fail to employ an accepted method of proving to convince themselves of the truth of a new conjecture, preferring instead to rely on pragmatic methods and more data (e.g., Fischbein, 1982; Vinner, 1983; Coe & Ruthven, 1994; Rodd, 2000; Simon, 2000).”
Cognitive Development of Proof (2011, background): “Rodd (2000) found that both the generic pictorial and algebraic proofs made more sense to the students because they gave a meaningful explanation as to why the proof is true, while the formal proof by induction is more obscure because it seems to use the result of the proof (assuming P(n) for a…”
Modelling mathematical argumentation: the importance of qualification (2007, methodology): “In the terms we will use in this paper, Rodd (2000) saw a warrant as removing uncertainty, whereas Toulmin was more flexible, accepting that a warrant can be qualified with a modal qualifier to reduce uncertainty.”