Hans Freudenthal – författare

This book is a product of love and respect. If that sounds rather odd I initially apologise, but let me explain why I use those words. The original manuscript was of course Freudenthal’s, but his colleagues have carried the project through to its conclusion with love for the man, and his ideas, and with a respect developed over years of communal effort. Their invitation to me to write this Preface e- bles me to pay my respects to the great man, although I am probably incurring his wrath for writing a Preface for his book without his permission! I just hope he understands the feelings of all colleagues engaged in this particular project. Hans Freudenthal died on October 13th, 1990 when this book project was well in hand. In fact he wrote to me in April 1988, saying “I am thinking about a new book. I have got the sub-title (China Lectures) though I still lack a title”. I was astonished. He had retired in 1975, but of course he kept working. Then in 1985 we had been helping him celebrate his 80th birthday, and although I said in an Editorial Statement in Educational Studies in Mathematics (ESM) at the time “we look forward to him enjoying many more years of non-retirement” I did not expect to see another lengthy manuscript.

Proceedings of the Colloquium sponsored by the Division of Philosophy of Sciences of the International Union of History and Philosophy of Sciences organized at Utrecht, January 1960.

Like preludes, prefaces are usually composed last. Putting them in the front of the book is a feeble reflection of what, in the style of mathe­ matics treatises and textbooks, I usually call thf didactical inversion: to be fit to print, the way to the result should be the inverse of the order in which it was found; in particular the key definitions, which were the finishing touch to the structure, are put at the front. For many years I have contrasted the didactical inversion with the thought-experiment. It is true that you should not communicate your mathematics to other people in the way it occurred to you, but rather as it could have occurred to you if you had known then what you know now, and as it would occur to the student if his learning process is being guided. This in fact is the gist of the lesson Socrates taught Meno's slave. The thought-experi­ ment tries to find out how a student could re-invent what he is expected to learn. I said about the preface that it is a feeble reflection of the didactical inversion. Indeed, it is not a constituent part of the book. It can even be torn out. Yet it is useful. Firstly, to the reviewer who then need not read the whole work, and secondly to the author himself, who like the composer gets an opportunity to review the Leitmotivs of the book.

Like preludes, prefaces are usually composed last. Putting them in the front of the book is a feeble reflection of what, in the style of mathe­ matics treatises and textbooks, I usually call thf didactical inversion: to be fit to print, the way to the result should be the inverse of the order in which it was found; in particular the key definitions, which were the finishing touch to the structure, are put at the front. For many years I have contrasted the didactical inversion with the thought-experiment. It is true that you should not communicate your mathematics to other people in the way it occurred to you, but rather as it could have occurred to you if you had known then what you know now, and as it would occur to the student if his learning process is being guided. This in fact is the gist of the lesson Socrates taught Meno's slave. The thought-experi­ ment tries to find out how a student could re-invent what he is expected to learn. I said about the preface that it is a feeble reflection of the didactical inversion. Indeed, it is not a constituent part of the book. It can even be torn out. Yet it is useful. Firstly, to the reviewer who then need not read the whole work, and secondly to the author himself, who like the composer gets an opportunity to review the Leitmotivs of the book.

A title that sounds like poetry, and a subtitle that seems to contradict the title! But the subtitle is right, and originally it was just the title. A strange subtitle, isn’t it? Preface to a Science of Mathematical Education. All sciences – in their prenatal stage – have known this kind of literature: only the term used was not ‘Preface’, but, for instance, ‘Prolegomena’, which * means the same though it sounds less provisional. In fact such works were thicker than the present one, by up to ten times. There is much more that can be said about a science before it comes into being than after; with the first results comes modesty. This is the preface to a book that will never be written: not by me, nor by anybody else. Once a science of mathematical education exists, it will get the preface it deserves. Nevertheless this preface – or what for honesty’s sake I have labelled so – must fulfil a function: the function of accelerating the birth of a science of mathematical education, which isseriously impeded by the unfounded view that such already exists. Against this view I have to argue: it rests on a wrong estimation – both over and under estimation at the same time – of what is to be considered as science.

A title that sounds like poetry, and a subtitle that seems to contradict the title! But the subtitle is right, and originally it was just the title. A strange subtitle, isn’t it? Preface to a Science of Mathematical Education. All sciences – in their prenatal stage – have known this kind of literature: only the term used was not ‘Preface’, but, for instance, ‘Prolegomena’, which * means the same though it sounds less provisional. In fact such works were thicker than the present one, by up to ten times. There is much more that can be said about a science before it comes into being than after; with the first results comes modesty. This is the preface to a book that will never be written: not by me, nor by anybody else. Once a science of mathematical education exists, it will get the preface it deserves. Nevertheless this preface – or what for honesty’s sake I have labelled so – must fulfil a function: the function of accelerating the birth of a science of mathematical education, which isseriously impeded by the unfounded view that such already exists. Against this view I have to argue: it rests on a wrong estimation – both over and under estimation at the same time – of what is to be considered as science.

The launch ofa new book series is always a challenging eventn ot only for the Editorial Board and the Publisher, but also, and more particularly, for the first author.

The launch ofa new book series is always a challenging eventn ot only for the Editorial Board and the Publisher, but also, and more particularly, for the first author. Both the Editorial Board and the Publisher are delightedt hat the first author in this series isw ell able to meet the challenge. Professor Freudenthal needs no introduction toanyone in the Mathematics Education field and it is particularly fitting that his book should be the first in this new series because it was in 1968 that he, and Reidel, produced the first issue oft he journal Edu cational Studies in Mathematics. Breakingfresh ground is therefore nothing new to Professor Freudenthal and this book illustrates well his pleasure at such a task. To be strictly correct the ‘ground’ which he has broken here is not new, but aswith Mathematics as an Educational Task and Weeding and Sowing, it is rather the novelty oft he manner in which he has carried out his analysis which provides us with so many fresh perspectives. It is our intention that this new book series should provide those who work int he emerging discipline of mathematicseducation with an essential resource, and at a time of considerable concern about the whole mathematics cu rriculum this book represents just such resource. ALAN J. BISHOP Managing Editor vii A LOOK BACKWARD AND A LOOK FORWARD Men die, systems last.

This book is a product of love and respect. Their invitation to me to write this Preface e- bles me to pay my respects to the great man, although I am probably incurring his wrath for writing a Preface for his book without his permission!