History of Mathematics in Mathematics Education: a Saussurean Perspective

It is not only because of a certain eclecticism in mathematics education research that semiotic ideas have begun to take root there: it is also because of the dawning recognition that key areas of interest in mathematics education genuinely have a semiotic nature. For this, one need only point to research focused on meaning, communication, language, and culture (e.g., Presmeg, 1997; Ernest,1997; Radford, 2001; Brown, 2001). The ways in which semiotics informs cultural aspects of mathematics education, particularly those connected with the history of mathematics, were highlighted in a discussion session at the 2003 meeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (PME27). The present paper continues the theme of the PME27 semiotics session by considering how semiotics can help clarify a problematic aspect of combining history of mathematics and mathematics education

Ways of Relating to the Mathematics of the Past

Historians of mathematics, by definition, look at mathematics of the past. But mathematicians, too, often look at mathematics of the past; mathematicians of the past themselves often looked very closely at mathematics of their own past. Is their relationship to the past the same as that of the historians? Is every view of the past an historical view? Indeed, is every historical view historical in the same way? Or is it possible that there are different kinds of relationships to the mathematics of the past? This paper will suggest that there are in fact a variety of such relationships. It will try to catalog some of these, without judgment as to whether they are necessarily correct or legitimate. It will also raise the question as to whether mathematics educators interested in the history mathematics have their own distinct relationship with the mathematics of the past or are aligned with one type or another

The Discipline of History and the “Modern Consensus in the Historiography of Mathematics”

Teachers and students of mathematics often view history of mathematics as just mathematics as they know it, but in another form. This view is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of history of mathematics and the kind of knowledge it attempts to acquire. Unfortunately, it can also lead to a deep sense of disappointment with the history of mathematics itself, and, ultimately, a misunderstanding of the historical nature of mathematics. This kind of misunderstanding and the disappointment following from it--both raised to the level of resentment--run through the paper A Critique of the Modern Consensus in the Historiography of Mathematics. My review of that paper, sent to me blind, became a response to it. In particular, this essay attempts to clarify the nature of the historical discipline and to show that author of the Critique ends up, in effect, wanting and not wanting history at the same time