RESEARCH REPORTS

MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY: IN THE WORDS OF

THE CREATORS
PETER LILJEDAHL
Simon Fraser University, Canada
What is the genesis of mathematics? What mechanisms govern the act of
mathematical creativity? This "is a problem which should intensely interest
the psychologist. It is the activity in which the human mind seems to take
the least from the outside world, in which it acts or seems to act only of
itself and on itself" (Poincar, 1952, p. 46). It should also intensely interest
the mathematics educator, for it is through mathematical creativity that we
see the essence of what it means to 'do' and learn mathematics. In this article
I explore the topic of mathematical creativity along two fronts, the first of
which is a brief synopsis of the history of work in this area. This is then
followed by a glimpse at a study designed to elicit from prominent
mathematicians ideas and thoughts on their own encounters with
mathematical creativity.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
In 1908 Henri Poincar (18541912) gave a presentation to the French
Psychological Society in Paris entitled 'Mathematical Creation'. This presentation,
as well as the essay it spawned, stands to this day as one of the most insightful, and
thorough treatments of the topic of mathematical creativity and invention. Inspired
by this presentation, Jacques Hadamard (1865-1963) began his own empirical
investigation into mathematical invention. The results of this seminal work
culminated in a series of lectures on mathematical invention at the cole Libre des
Hautes Etudes in New York City in 1943. These talks were subsequently published
as The Psychology of Mathematical Invention in the Mathematical Field
(Hadamard,1945).
Hadamard's treatment of the subject of invention at the crossroads of mathematics
and psychology is an extensive exploration and extended argument for the
existence of unconscious mental processes. To summarize, Hadamard took the
ideas that Poincar had posed and, borrowing a conceptual framework for the
characterization of the creative process in general, turned them into a stage theory.
This theory still stands as the most viable and reasonable description of the process

Proceedings of The 5th International Conference on Creativity in Mathematics

and the Education of Gifted Students.
Haifa, Israel, February 24-28, 2008

Peter Liljedahl

of mathematical invention. In what follows I present this theory, referenced not

only to Hadamard and Poincar, but also to some of the many researchers who's
work has informed and verified different aspects of the theory.

MATHEMATICAL INVENTION
The phenomenon of mathematical invention, although marked by sudden
illumination, consists of four separate stages stretched out over time, of which
illumination is but one part. These stages are initiation, incubation, illumination,
and verification (Hadamard, 1945). The first of these stages, the initiation phase,
consists of deliberate and conscious work. This would constitute a person's
voluntary, and seemingly fruitless, engagement with a problem and be
characterized by an attempt to solve the problem by trolling through a repertoire of
past experiences (Bruner, 1964; Schn, 1987). This is an important part of the
inventive process because it creates the tension of unresolved effort that sets up the
conditions necessary for the ensuing emotional release at the moment of
illumination (Davis & Hersh, 1980; Feynman, 1999; Hadamard, 1945; Poincar,
1952; Rota, 1997). Following the initiation stage the solver, unable to come to a
solution stops working on the problem at a conscious level (Dewey, 1933) and
begins to work on it at an unconscious level (Hadamard, 1945; Poincar, 1952).
This is referred to as the incubation stage of the inventive process and it is
inextricably linked to the conscious and intentional effort that precedes it. After the
period of incubation a rapid coming to mind of a solution, referred to as
illumination, may occurs. This is accompanied by a feeling of certainty (Poincar,
1952) and positive emotions (Barnes, 2000; Burton 1999; Rota, 1997). With
regards to the phenomenon of illumination, it is clear that this phase is the
manifestation of a bridging that occurs between the unconscious mind and the
conscious mind (Poincar, 1952), a coming to (conscious) mind of an idea or
solution. However, what brings the idea forward to consciousness is unclear. There
are theories on aesthetic qualities of the idea (Sinclair, 2002; Poincar, 1952),
effective surprise/shock of recognition (Bruner, 1964), fluency of processing
(Whittlesea and Williams, 2001), or breaking functional fixedness (Ashcraft,
1989). Regardless of the impetus, the correctness of the emergent idea is evaluated
during the fourth and final stage verification.

154

CMEG-5

Mathematical Creativity: in
the Words of the Creators

HADAMARD RESURECTED
For the study presented here a portion of Hadamard's original questionnaire was
used to elicit from contemporary mathematicians ideas and thoughts on their own
encounters with the phenomenon of mathematical discovery1. Hadamard's original
questionnaire contained 33 questions pertaining to everything from personal habits,
to family history, to meteorological conditions during times of work (Hadamard,
1945). From this extensive and exhaustive list of questions the five that most
directly related to the phenomena of mathematical discovery and creation were
selected. They are:

Would you say that your principle discoveries have been the result of deliberate
endeavour in a definite direction, or have they arisen, so to speak,
spontaneously? Have you a specific anecdote of a moment of
insight/inspiration/illumination that would demonstrate this? [Hadamard # 9]

How much of mathematical creation do you attribute to chance, insight,

inspiration, or illumination? Have you come to rely on this in any way?
[Hadamard# 7]

Could you comment on the differences in the manner in which you work when
you are trying to assimilate the results of others (learning mathematics) as
compared to when you are indulging in personal research (creating
mathematics)? [Hadamard # 4]

Have your methods of learning and creating mathematics changed since you
were a student? How so? [Hadamard # 16]

Among your greatest works have you ever attempted to discern the origin of the
ideas that lead you to your discoveries? Could you comment on the creative
processes that lead you to your discoveries? [Hadamard # 6]

These questions, along with a covering letter, were then sent to 150 prominent
mathematicians (see below) in the form of an email.
Hadamard set excellence in the field of mathematics as a criterion for participation
in his study. In keeping with Hadamard's standards, excellence in the field of
mathematics was also chosen as the primary criterion for participation in this study.

I would like to acknowledge the contribution made by Peter Borwein with respect to the
collection of data for this study.

CMEG-5

155

Peter Liljedahl

As such, recipients of the survey were selected based on their achievements in their
field as recognized by their being honored with prestigious prizes or membership
in noteworthy societies. In particular, the 150 recipients were chosen from the
published lists of the Fields Medalists, the Nevanlinna Prize winners, as well as the
membership list of the American Society of Arts & Sciences. The 25 recipients,
who responded to the survey, in whole or in part, have come to be referred to as the
'participants' in this study.
The responses were initially sorted according to the survey question they were
most closely addressing. In addition, a second sorting of the data was done
according to trends that emerged in the participants' responses, regardless of which
question they were in response to. This was a much more intensive and involved
sorting of the data in an iterative process of identifying themes, coding for themes,
identifying more themes, recoding for the new themes, and so on. In the end, there
were 12 themes that emerged from the data, each of which can be attributed to one
of the four stages presented in the previous section. Some of these themes serve to
confirm the work of Hadamard while others serve to extend it. Given the limited
space available here, in what follows I provide a very brief summary of three of the
themes that extend our understanding of various stages of the inventive process.
The De-Emphasis of Details
A particularly strong theme that emerged from this study was the role that detail
does NOT play in the incubation phase. Many of the participants mentioned how
difficult it is to learn mathematics by attending to the details, and how much easier
it is if the details are de-emphasized.
Stephen: Understanding others is often a painful process until one suddenly goes
beyond the details and sees whole what's going on.
Mark:

There is not much difference. More precisely, I seldom study or learn

mathematics in detail.

In some cases, this also manifested itself as a strategy for problem solving and
research.
Carl:

156

Get the basics of the problem firmly and thoroughly into the head. After
that, an hour or two each day of thinking on it is all that's needed for
progress. [..] For that reason, I started some 20 years ago to ask students
(and colleagues) wanting to tell me some piece of mathematics to tell me
directly, perhaps with some gestures, but certainly without the aid of a
blackboard. While that can be challenging, it will, if successful, put the
problem more firmly and cleanly into the head, hence increases the
chances for understanding. I am also now more aware of the fact that

CMEG-5

Mathematical Creativity: in
the Words of the Creators

explaining problem and progress to someone else is beneficial; I am

guessing that it forces one to have the problem more clearly and cleanly in
one's head.
In presenting his strategy for getting " the basics of the problem firmly and
thoroughly into" his head, Carl has come up with a strategy that de-emphasizes the
details by forcing the transmission of the problem through a medium wherein
details are impossible. That is, talking de-emphasizes details and, as a result, will
"put the problem more firmly and cleanly into the head, hence increases the
chances for understanding."
The Role of Talking
Further to this previous theme, it is also clear from the mathematicians' responses
that, while working in the initiation phase, they have a much higher regard for
transmission of mathematical knowledge through talking than through reading.
This is best summarized in the comments of Jerry and George.
Jerry:

I assimilate the work of others best through personal contact and being
able to question them directly. [..] In this question and answer mode, I
often get good ideas too. In this sense, the two modes are almost
indistinguishable.

George: I get most of my real mathematical input live, from (good) lectures or oneon-one discussions. I think most mathematicians do. I look at papers only
after I have had some overall idea of a problem and then I do not look at
details.
Considering these last two themes (de-emphasizing of details and the role of
talking) it becomes clear that the painstakingly rigorous fashion in which
mathematical knowledge is written, both in journals and in text-books, as well as
the detailed fashion of over-engineered curriculums stand in stark contrast to the
methods by which mathematicians claim they best come to learn new mathematics.
The Contribution of Chance
The previous themes both pertain to the initiation phase of the inventive process.
Indeed, seven of the 12 emergent themes deal with this stage. The theme presented
here, however, concerns the illumination stage. From the responses provided by the
participants it became clear that, for them, chance plays a very large role in
illumination and insight. There are two types of chance, intrinsic chance and
extrinsic chance. Intrinsic chance deals with the luck of coming up with an answer,
of having the right combination of ideas join within your mind to produce a new
understanding. This was discussed by Hadamard (1945) as well as by a host of

CMEG-5

157

Peter Liljedahl

others under the name of "the chance hypothesis" and is nicely demonstrated in
Dan's comment.
Dan:

And relevant ideas do pop up in your mind when you are taking a shower,
and can pop up as well even when you are sleeping, (many of these ideas
turn out not to work very well) or even when you are driving. Thus while
you can turn the problem over in your mind in all ways you can think of,
try to use all the methods you can recall or discover to attack it, there is
really no standard approach that will solve it for you. At some stage, if
you are lucky, the right combination occurs to you, and you are able to
check it and use it to put an argument together.

Extrinsic chance, on the other hand, deals with the luck associated with a chance
reading of an article, a chance encounter, or a some other chance encounter with a
piece of mathematical knowledge, any of which contribute to the eventual
resolution of the problem that one is working on. This is best demonstrated by the
words of Mark and Carl.
Mark:

Do I experience feelings of illumination? Rarely, except in connection

with chance, whose offerings I treasure. In my wandering life between
concrete fields and problems, chance is continually important in two
ways. A chance reading or encounter has often brought an awareness of
existing mathematical tools that were new to me and allowed me to return
to old problems I was previously obliged to leave aside. In other cases, a
chance encounter suggested that old tools could have new uses that helped
them expand.

Carl:

But chance is a major aspect: what papers one happens to have read, what
discussions one happens to have struck up, what ideas one's students are
struck by (never mind the very basic chance process of insemination that
produced this particular mathematician).

Once again, the idea that mathematical discovery often relies on the fleeting and
unpredictable occurrences of chance encounters is starkly contradictory to the
image projected by mathematics as a field reliant on logic and deductive reasoning.
Extrinsic chance, in particular, is an element that has been largely ignored in the
literature.

CONCLUSIONS
Mathematical creativity and invention are aspects of 'doing' mathematics that have
long been accepted as standing outside of the theories of "logical forms" (Dewey,
1938, p.103). That is, they rely on the extra-logical processes of insight and
illumination as opposed to the logical process of deductive and inductive

158

CMEG-5

Mathematical Creativity: in
the Words of the Creators

reasoning. This study confirms this understanding as well as adds to this cohort of
extra-logical processes the role of chance. In addition, this study also comments on
the initiation phase of the inventive process in showing that it is best facilitated
through the de-emphasizes of details and transmission of knowledge through
talking and (re)creation. As such, this study also contributes to our understanding
of the larger contexts of 'doing' and learning mathematics.

REFERENCES
Ashcraft, M. (1989). Human memory and cognition. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and
Company.
Bruner, J. (1964). Bruner on knowing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Burton, L. (1999). The practices of mathematicians: What do they tell us about coming to
know mathematics? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37(2), 121-143.
Davis, P. & Hersch, R. (1980). The mathematical experience. Boston, MA: Birkhauser.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Boston, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
Feynman, R. (1999). The pleasure of finding things out. Cambridge, MA: Perseus
Publishing.
Hadamard, J. (1954). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. New York, NY:
Dover Publications.Poincar, H. (1952). Science and method. New York, NY: Dover
Publications, Inc.
Poincar, H. (1952). Science and method. New York, NY: Dover Publications Inc.
Rota, G. (1997). Indiscrete thoughts. Boston, MA: Birkhauser.
Schn, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Sinclair, N. (2002). The kissing triangles: The aesthetics of mathematical discovery.
International Journal of Computers for Mathematics Learning, 7(1), 45-63.
Whittlesea, B. & Williams, L. (2001). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: The heuristic
basis of feelings of familiarity. Journal for Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 27(1), 3-13

CMEG-5

159

RESEARCH REPORTS

CONCEPTIONS OF GIFTEDNESS IN SCHOOL

MATHEMATICS A SWEDISH CONTEXT
LINDA MATTSSON
Mathematical Sciences, Gteborg University, Sweden

Abstract
This report presents an ongoing study focusing on conceptions of
mathematical giftedness as these are expressed in three different, but closely
related Swedish domains: the public domain, the research domain, and the
domain of practicing teachers. These domains will be examined with respect
to the prevailing debates on mathematical giftedness, as well as to concepts
used and issues of interest to the parties concerned.
At the time of the conference, preliminary results from the ongoing project
will be presented.

INTRODUCTION
One factor which makes the national discussion about high ability students in
Swedish schools difficult is the fact that we do not have an accepted usage of terms
to denote and characterise high ability students. Thus conceptions of giftedness are
interpreted and expressed differently in various settings. Further, conceptions of
giftedness are seldom made clear, leaving debates held and assertions made hard to
follow and even harder to refute. These vague conceptions of giftedness may lead
to a situation when biases against high ability students, as well as myths about this
group, will make the discussion even more blurred. Thus in order to promote a
more structured educational development for high ability students in mathematics,
we need to gain a more thorough understanding about the prevalent conceptions
held by the parties engaged in discussions about education for mathematically
gifted students.

Proceedings of The 5th International Conference on Creativity in Mathematics

and the Education of Gifted Students.
Haifa, Israel, February 24-28, 2008

Linda Mattsson

The modern study of giftedness has a long past (Mnks, Heller & Passow, 2000),
and the definition of giftedness has been expressed in a variety of ways (Mnks &
Mason, 2000). Most of the recent models of conceptions of giftedness are liberal,
and researchers agree that there is such a thing as specific giftedness (Mayer,
2005). However, the conceptions of mathematical giftedness may be described in a
variety of ways (Wieczerkowski, Cropley & Prado, 2000), but are often defined as
individual abilities in mathematics (for an overview see Sriraman, 2005). Adding
to the variety of terms and characterizations used, are the many conceptions used in
practical settings (see e.g. European Commission, 2006). Hence we end up with a
number of concepts and conceptions used for describing and providing for
giftedness. To summarize, there exist many interpretations of giftedness, many
controversies of how to provide for the group of high ability students, as well as a
laxity of terminology for denoting this group (see e.g. Gang, 1995). However, in
spite of the many unsolved and remaining questions, there is a major difference
between the uncertainty as expressed in the international debate about gifted
students and the conceptions of mathematical giftedness, and the wavering and
vague discussion of mathematical giftedness in Sweden. The ongoing Swedish
study on gifted education in mathematics will bring some clarity to this field.

FOCUS OF RESEARCH
In the ongoing study, focus is put on conceptions of mathematical giftedness in
school as these are expressed within three domains the public domain, the
researcher domain, and the domain of practicing teachers. The public domain is an
area dominated by political actors, government agencies, and other authorities.
Within the research domain we find researchers involved in the investigation and
discussion about gifted education in Sweden. In the domain of practicing teachers
we find the agents who have the responsibility to arrange educational activities for
all students.
The object of this study is to identify the prevalent debates and issues of
interests regarding mathematical giftedness within each of these domains. A further
purpose is to elucidate underlying conceptions of giftedness held within each
domain, and specifically to investigate the conceptions of mathematical giftedness.

METHOD
Data collection
Data will be gathered from selected sources representing the three domains. The
public domain expresses itself through e.g. curricula, recommendations and
governmental documents. Data will thus be collected from such sources, syllabuses
of mathematics, budget proposals, as well as, from documents from such as
162

CMEG-5

Conceptions of Giftedness
in a Swedish Context

authorities as The Swedish National Agency for School Improvement and The
Swedish National Agency for Education.
The research field refers to contributions to the field of gifted education and to the
national debate on gifted education in Sweden. Since such research contribution is
rare, this study will comprise all research efforts. Data will be collected from
journals, magazines, public newspapers, and applications for funding.
The domain of practicing teachers refers to debates and discussions held among
teachers working at the upper secondary school level. Information about the
discussions in this domain will be gathered in three different ways: through
questionnaires sent to randomly selected mathematics teachers in the Swedish
upper secondary school, through recordings of informal talks with teachers at
selected schools, and through studies of applications for funding for educational
development projects.
Analysis
Data will be analysed using Content analysis (Weber, 1990; Krippendorf 1980).
This means that each of the given texts, i.e. documents and interviews, will be
broken down and coded into different themes of concepts of mathematical
giftedness or high ability in mathematics. Using relational analysis, the concepts
are then explored in order to find meaningful relationships between them. The
result of the analysis of the content within each theme is then compared to the
theme content obtained from the other sources of data, thus making it possible to
emphasise general themes and to draw conclusions about variations of conceptions
of mathematical giftedness within and among domains.
At the time of the conference, preliminary results from the ongoing project will be
presented.

REFERENCES
European Comission.(2006). Specific educational measures to promote all forms of
giftedness at school in Europe. (Working document).
Gagn, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the
language of the field. Roeper Review, 18 (2), 103-111.
Krippendorf, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills:
Sage Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2005). The scientific study of giftedness. In Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J.E.
(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness. 2nd ed. (pp. 437-447). New York: Cambridge.
Mnks, F. J., Heller, K. A. & Passow, A. H. (2000). The study of giftedness: Reflections on
where we are and where we are going. In Heller, K. A., et al. (Ed.), International
handbook of giftedness and talent. 2nd ed. (pp. 839-863). Oxford: Elsevier.

CMEG-5

163

Linda Mattsson

Mnks, F. J. & Mason, E. J. (2000). Developmental psychology and giftedness: Theories

and research. In Heller, K. A., et al. (Ed.), International handbook of giftedness and
talent. 2nd ed. (pp. 141-155). Oxford: Elsevier.
Sriraman, B. (2005). Are giftedness and creativity synonyms in mathematics?. The Journal
of Secondary Gifted Education, 1, 20-36.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis, second edition. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
Wieczerkowski, W., Cropley, A. J. & Prado, T. M. (2000). Nurturing talents/gifts in
mathematics. In Heller, K. A., et al. (Ed.), International handbook of giftedness and
talent. 2nd ed. (pp. 141-155). Oxford: Elsevier

164

CMEG-5

RESEARCH REPORTS

CREATIVITY OR GIFTEDNESS?
HARTWIG MEISSNER
Westf. Wilhelms-Univ. Muenster, Germany

Abstract
We confront young children and adults with mathematical challenges and
observe their behavior. Some problem solvers are creative, some are gifted,
some are both. But what does it mean to be creative or to be gifted? How
can we distinguish? Is it necessary at all to distinguish? Analyzing the
mental processes we discover two types of mental activities or behavior. On
the one hand we distinguish a logical and conscious mode of action and on
the other an intuitive and mainly unconscious kind of behavior. They
sometimes complement one another but sometimes also conflict with each
other. Analyzing an example where different individuals were working on
the same mathematical challenge we can identify explicitly those different
mental processes. In the oral presentation at the conference we will present
some more examples.

CREATIVITY
What does creativity mean? Many experts from different disciplines give various
descriptions, but there is no standardized answer (Meissner 2003, 2005)1.
Creativity is a highly complex phenomenon, creativity cannot be described via a
long list of isolated items. To develop and further creativity in mathematics
education teachers and students need more than a correct and solid mathematical
knowledge. Specific environments are necessary.
In our research group in Muenster we try to concentrate on three aspects. First, we
must further individual and social components, like motivation, curiosity, selfconfidence, flexibility, engagement, humor, imagination, happiness, acceptance of

see also http://wwwmath1.uni-muenster.de/didaktik/u/meissne/WWW/creativity.htm

Proceedings of The 5th International Conference on Creativity in Mathematics

and the Education of Gifted Students.
Haifa, Israel, February 24-28, 2008

Hartwig Meissner
oneself and others, satisfaction, success, ... We need a competitive atmosphere
which still allows spontaneous actions and reactions, we need responsibility
combined with voluntariness, ... We need tolerance and freedom, for the
individuals to express their views, and within the group to further a fruitful
communication. We need profound discussions as well as intuitive or spontaneous
inputs and reactions.
Second, we need challenging problems. They must be fascinating, interesting,
exciting, thrilling, important, or provoking. Open ended problems are welcome or
challenging problems with surprising contexts and results. We must connect the
problems with the individual daily life experiences of the students, we must meet
their fields of experiences and their interest areas. The students must be able to
identify themselves with the problem and its possible solution(s).
And third, the children must develop important abilities. They must learn to
explore and to structure a problem, to invent own or to modify given techniques, to
listen and argue, to define goals, and to cooperate in teams. We need children who
are active, who discover and experience, who enjoy and have fun, who guess and
test, and who can laugh on own mistakes. That means, another step to further
creative thinking is to further the development of these abilities. But they are
demanding abilities and not simple skills. They rely and depend on a complex
system of cognitive processes.

GIFTEDNESS
above
average ability
(top 15-20%)
A

AC
creativity
C

ACT
GIFTEDNESS
AT

CT

T
task commitment
& motivation

Fig. 1. Three-Ring Model of Giftedness (Renzulli)

166

CMEG-5

Creativity or Giftedness?

Similar to creativity there are many different descriptions or definitions of what

giftedness might mean, see for example Sternberg e. a. (2005), Heller e. a.
(1993), or Kiesswetter e. a. (1988). Probably the most common model of giftedness
is the Three-Ring Model from Renzulli, see Fig. 1. To describe giftedness Renzulli
concentrates on the three components
G1 above average ability (upper 15 20%)
G2 creativity (original thinking, ingenuity, divergent thinking, ...)
G3 task commitment and intrinsic motivation (energy and perspiration for a
successful problem solving and for mastering specific performance areas,
enjoying challenges, ...)
Putting these three interlocking clusters of traits together, giftedness then appears
as the interaction among these three clusters. And with regard to the topic of this
conference it is interesting to see that creativity is one of the necessary conditions
for giftedness. But looking at Fig. 1 we also can see that creativity in Renzullis
Three-Ring Model is not necessarily a subset, neither of giftedness, nor of above
average abilities nor of task commitment & motivation. Summarizing, creativity
and giftedness are strongly related to each other. But also non gifted children can
be creative2.
We also see the strong relationship between creativity and giftedness when we
compare the properties for creativity described above with the indicators for
mathematical giftedness given by Kaepnick (1998). According to Kaepnick
mathematical giftedness is characterized by certain mathematics related abilities
(K1) and general human aspects (K2):
K1 Necessary mathematics related abilities are . . .
being mathematically sensitive (for numbers, figures, operations, structures,
esthetical aspects),
being original and having fantasy in mathematical activities,
remembering mathematical facts,
ability to structure mathematical facts,
ability to switch levels of representation,
reversible thinking and transfer,
visual / spatial thinking.

Several examples are given in the Proceedings from the recent conferences on creativity
in mathematics education.

CMEG-5

167

Hartwig Meissner
K2 Necessary general human aspects are . . .
being highly mentally active,
being intellectually inquisitive,
task commitment and motivation,
enjoying problem solving,
ability to work with concentration,
perseverance,
independence,
ability to cooperate.
Comparing these K1 and K2 properties for giftedness with the properties for
creativity we see a close connection. We therefore will analyze the related
cognitive processes.

MENTAL PROCESSES
A successful problem solving depends on the cognitive structure the problem
solver has. An appropriate internal representation or concept image is
necessary, a powerful Vorstellung (MEISSNER 2002). These Vorstellungen3 are like
mental scripts or frames or micro worlds. They are personal and individual. We
distinguish two kinds of Vorstellungen, which we call spontaneous Vorstellungen
(S1) and reflective Vorstellungen. (S2). Thus we refer to a polarity in thinking
which already was discussed before by many other authors4 and which is reflected
in more detail in Dual-Process-Theories in cognitive psychology5.
Reflective Vorstellungen (S2) may be regarded as an internal mental copy of a net
of knowledge, abilities, and skills, a net of facts, relations, properties, etc. where
we have a conscious access to. Reflective Vorstellungen mainly are the result of a
teaching. The development of reflective Vorstellungen certainly is in the center of

We will use the German word Vorstellung instead of the vague expression internal
representation.

e.g. VYGOTZKI (1978) talks about spontaneous and scientific concepts, GINSBURG
(1977) compares informal work and written work, or STRAUSS (1982) discusses a
common sense knowledge vs. a cultural knowledge. STRAUSS especially has pointed
out that these two types of knowledge are quite different by nature, that they develop
quite differently, and that sometimes they interfere and conflict (U-shaped
behavior).

for example see Kahnemann & Frederick (2005) or Leron & Hazzan (2006).

168

CMEG-5

Creativity or Giftedness?

mathematics education. Here a formal, logical, deterministic, and analytical

thinking is the goal. To reflect and to make conscious are the important activities.
Most teachers or students or even researchers in mathematics often are unaware of
their spontaneous and intuitive Vorstellungen. In the mathematics education class
room often we more or less do not realize or even ignore or suppress intuitive or
spontaneous ideas. The traditional mathematics education does not emphasize
unconsciously produced feelings or reactions. In mathematics education there is no
space for informal pre-reflections, for an only general or global or overall view, or
for uncontrolled spontaneous activities. Guess and test or trial and error are not
considered to be a valuable mathematical behavior in the class room. But all these
components are necessary to develop spontaneous or common-sense Vorstellungen
(S1). These Vorstellungen mainly develop unconsciously or intuitively. They are
fast and automatic and need not much working memory. But they also are hard to
change or to overcome.
When we discuss creativity and giftedness especially these S1 components are
necessary. Creative or gifted children use their common-sense knowledge very
intensively. They very often react unconsciously, they spontaneously develop new
ideas, and often we can detect a cognitive jump. These observations allow an
additional interpretation of Fig. 1: In the Three-Ring Model from Renzulli the
subsets A and AT mainly represent the analytical, logical S2 components while
the subsets C and CT can be interpreted as the area of spontaneous, intuitive and
often unconscious S1 components. Thus we can summarize:

Creativity basically determines the intuitive part of giftedness, while

Giftedness needs an effective interplay of intuition and conscious

knowledge.

We will analyze that interplay of Vorstellungen along an example, where children

and adults were working on a multiplication problem.

CMEG-5

169

Hartwig Meissner

AN EMPIRICAL EXAMPLE

Fig. 2. Decimal Grid Task

Children as well as adults had to work on the following task (individually, then
discussion): In the grid of Fig. 2, select a path from A to B. Change the direction
after each numbered step. Multiply together (with a calculator) the decimal
numbers6 on each step you go along. Find the path with the smallest product. Mark
each path in one of the small grids. You have 4 trials.
Very often we observe the same behavior, we will summarize:
Getting the
worksheet and a calculator most of the subjects start immediately pressing buttons
(intuitive, common sense activity, no logical or analytical waste of time). We
argue that common sense Vorstellungen related to the keywords multiply and
calculator and small product become dominant. Analyzing the more detailed
answers we can identify different aspects of an unconscious Vorstellung
multiplication makes bigger, like the smaller the factor, the smaller the product
or as less factors as possible. Often we get the following smallest products:

In Germany a comma is used instead of a decimal point.

170

CMEG-5

Creativity or Giftedness?

(1)

Product
62.121024

Explanation
0.7x2.1x3.1x6.4x7.1x0.3

(2)

1.89

2.5x8.4x0.3x0.3

(3)

0.3564

13.2x0.5x0.6x0.3x0.3

Strategy
I always took the
smallest number
as less steps as
possible
I looked for many
zeros (decimals
0,__)

We also see many unconscious and unsystematic trials. When we ask we get
answers like I do not really remember why I did that (intuitively searching for a
strategy). We write down at the black board several of the given smallest
products, then a challenge starts: Try to explain the paths from others, how did
you get that result, why did you choose that path, ...? New strategies and
experiences come up, some intuitive strategies become conscious and get reflected:
(4) I was looking for small detours (instead 13.2 go 0.7x5.9, instead 5.4 go
0.5x0.6, etc.).
(5) After 0.7x5.9 we can continue with small factors x0.5x0.6x0.3x0.3=0.11151.
(6) I discovered a circle (... x0.6x0.8x0.3x ...).
(7) I tried to use a small path more than once (small path means decimal < 1).
(8) I run through the circle many times (intuitive concept of limit).
We will summarize, creativity or giftedness? At the beginning there were
(unconscious) fixed mental frames. Then some creative ideas opened the
discussion (see 4 8), some cognitive jumps happened (see 4, 7). The intuitive
Vorstellung multiplication makes bigger became conscious and got reflected and
got changed into the analytical Vorstellung multiplication makes bigger with
factors bigger than 1 and smaller with factors smaller than 1. Creativity was
necessary, but giftedness?

REFERENCES
Ginsburg, H. (1977). Childrens Arithmetic. New York: Van Nostrand.
Heller, K. A., Moenks, F. J., Passow, H. A. (1993). International Handbook of Research and
Development of Giftedness and Talent. Oxford.
Kahneman, D., Frederick, S. (2005). A Model of Heuristic Judgement. In Holyoak, K.J.,
Morrison, R.J. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, pp. 267 293. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kaepnick, F. (1998). Mathematisch begabte Kinder: Modelle, empirische Studien und
Foerderprojekte fuer das Grundschulalter. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main.

CMEG-5

171

Hartwig Meissner
Kiesswetter, K. (1988, Ed.). Das Hamburger Modell zur Identifizierung und Foerderung von
mathematisch besonders befaehigten Schuelern. Berichte aus der Forschung Bd. 2.
Fachbereich Erziehungswissenschaft, Universitt Hamburg.
Leron, U., Hazzan, O. (2006). The Rationality Debate: Application of Cognitive Psychology
to Mathematics Education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 62/2, pp. 105
126.
Meissner, H. (2002). Einstellung, Vorstellung, and Darstellung. Proceedings of the 26th
Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education,
Vol. 1, pp. 156 161. University of East Anglia, Norwich UK.
Meissner, H. (2003). Stimulating Creativity. Proceedings of the Third International
Conference "Creativity in Mathematics Education and the Education of Gifted Students",
pp. 30 - 36. Rousse, Bulgaria.
Meissner, H. (2005). Challenges to Provoke Creativity. Proceedings of the 3rd East Asia
Regional Conference on Mathematics Education (EARCOME 3), Symposium on
Creativity and Mathematics Education. Shanghai, China.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappa,
60, pp. 180-184, 261.
Renzulli, J. S. (1998). The Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness. In: Baum, S. M., Reis, S.
M., Maxfield, L. R. (Eds.). Nurturing the gifts and talents of primary grade students.
Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Sternberg, R. J., Davidson, J. E. (2005, Eds.). Conceptions of Giftedness - Second Edition;
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 246 279.
Strauss, S. (1982, Ed.). U-shaped Behavioral Growth. Academic Press, New York.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological
Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

172

CMEG-5

RESEARCH REPORTS

INTELLECTUAL COURAGE AND

1
MATHEMATICAL CREATIVITY
NITSA MOVSHOVITZ-HADAR
Technion, Israel Institute of Technology
This paper attempts at looking into mathematical works with reference to
the actions they involve, searching for traces of intellectually courageous
moves that presumably lead to findings, and looking into the history of
mathematics as it is related to this issue. Consequently, some conclusions
about education of the mathematically gifted young generation are drawn.
"Intellectual courage, intellectual honesty,
and wise restraint are the moral qualities of
the scientist"
George Polya (1954)

INTRODUCTION
Research of the characteristics of mathematically talented and gifted students in the
past decade yielded new instruments for identifying such students (e.g. E.L. Mann,
2005). In addition, there is a visible tendency in the teacher education literature
(e.g. Silver 1997) to focus on the need to encourage students to take risks of
making mistakes, particularly in calculations and also in problem solving, as
discouraging risk taking may inhibit the development of mathematical creativity.
Research jargon includes a lot about curiosity, and challenge but very little about
the courage it takes to actually do mathematics
Unlike Polya (ibid), the majority of practicing mathematicians are not concerned
with the human creative processes that are involved in learning and knowing
mathematics and in its actual creation. Very few leave a record about the various

1 I wish to thank Dr. Michael Fried, Dr. Richard Getz, Prof. Larry Lesser, Prof.
Diane Resek, Dr. Alla Shmukler, and Prof. John Webb for their enlightening
comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Proceedings of The 5th International Conference on Creativity in Mathematics

and the Education of Gifted Students.
Haifa, Israel, February 24-28, 2008

Nitsa Movshovitz-Hadar

actions they had taken in the process of unfolding their contributions to the
development of mathematics. It is the results and their establishment that largely
occupy the minds and the writings of the mathematics community. Mainstream
philosophy of mathematics focuses, in general, on mathematical foundations,
dealing mainly with the nature of mathematics as an intellectual discipline and its
logic-based development. Thus, the study of mathematical knowledge acquisition
and the psychology underlying mathematics-in-the-making, remains, almost solely,
the interest of mathematics educators and cognitive scientists. These communities
embrace a postmodern, humanist form of constructivism, tending to focus on
epistemological issues, which do not always apply to the needs of practicing
educators.
This paper attempts at looking into mathematical works with reference to the
actions they involve, searching for traces of intellectually courageous moves that
presumably lead to findings, and looking into the history of mathematics as it is
related to this issue. Consequently, some conclusions about education of the
mathematically gifted young generation are drawn.

A FEW WORDS ABOUT COURAGE

Let us distinguish between three kinds of courage: Physical courage, Social
courage and Intellectual courage.

Physical courage usually involves taking bodily risk of pain, injury or even
death. (E.g. The courage needed in order to save endangered human life, or in
order to jump into cold water).

Social courage is usually a part of some kind of conscience-driven action that

involves taking risk of social acceptance or of some kind of personal penalty
such as being fired or sent to jail. (E.g. The courage needed to express atheistic
attitudes in a religious society, or the courage to expose corruption in one's
workplace).

Intellectual courage is something else. It involves one's inner persistency and

motivation to expand one's own understanding of a matter or illuminate it from
a different direction. It usually involves no risk, nether physical pain nor
penalty. Intellectual courage has nothing to do with one's body or
consciousness. It requires cognitive self confidence and insight. The only risk
in making such a move is that it may not lead anywhere. Then some intellectual
courage is needed in order to abandon it and change course. The play on word

174

CMEG-5

Intellectual Courage and

Mathematical Creativity

in Leunig's cartoon, breaking the word understanding to two parts and

connecting it to the 'No standing' road sign, is a great example of an intellectual
courageous move by the artist2. Escher's drawings belong to this category in a
different manner. The rest of this paper examines a few examples of
intellectually courageous moves carried out by great mathematicians.

Before we delve into a few examples of intellectually courageous moves in

mathematics, let us note that the history of mathematics knew many intellectual
"battles" and hence is strewn with actions of social courage by mathematicians,
who were often emotionally involved. To name a few:

The fight over admitting the negative numbers; (For an original way of
exposing it, see: Gavin Hitchcock (2004).)

The attack by Bishop Berkeley (1685-1753) on Newton's fluxions and Leibniz's

infinitesimals; (For more details see for example, Davis and Hersh (1981).)

The Vibrating String Controversy settled by Jean le Rond d'Alembert (1717

1783); (For more details see Grattan-Guinness (1970).)

"No standing" was a part of the three tier parking strategy (No Stopping, No Standing,
No Parking) in NSW Australian. It was repealed in 2006.
Michael Leunig is a great Australian artist/poet, who kindly gave permission to use
this cartoon in mathematical expositions. I wish to thank my colleague David
Easdown from the University of Sydney mathematics department for sharing it with
me.

CMEG-5

175

Nitsa Movshovitz-Hadar

The necessity felt by Sophie Germain (1776-1831) to write using a male

pseudonym (Antoine Leblanc) in order to pave her way into the male
dominated mathematics community in which the common social attitude was
that Mathematics was no place for women (Katz(1993));

The long and arduous struggle Georg Cantor (1845-1918) had to withstand with
his contemporaries in order to defend his controversial view of the infinite and
transfinite (this, eventually, had an influence on his mental health. For more
details see for example Dunham (1990), Maor (1991).);

The dispute between the Intuitionists and the Formalists over the legitimacy of
proof by contradiction ("reduction ad absurdum");

Logicists vs. Empiricists' differences over the foundations of mathematical

knowledge being a-priory analytically derivable from logic or empirically
discovered;

Present days turbulence over computer assisted proof, among philosophers,

logicians and mathematicians concerned about the concept of truth.

INSTANCES OF INTELLECTUALLY COURAGEOUS MOVES IN

MATHEMATICS
Unknown Hindu mathematician (8th century): Designating Nothing as
Something
The invention of a symbol (0) for nothing is traditionally attributed to the Hindu in
the 8th century. The Persian mathematician al-Khowarizmi (780-850) described a
completed Hindu system in his book dated A.D. 825. (Eves (1983), Lecture 15).
The invention of a symbol for no quantity was an extraordinarily intellectually
courageous move. Of course, the notion of nothing was not new to the Hindu. The
true need for its designation by a symbol was raised probably in the process of
transition from abacus arithmetic to written calculation. An empty rod on the
abacus caused trouble in this process. Using the symbol zero solved it. Introducing
zero as a placeholder in the decimal number system was the breakthrough for
developing written calculations.
Even nowadays zero presents a challenge not only to school children. Many adults
find it difficult to relate to zero as a regular whole number that represents a
quantity, and to consider its parity and other additive and multiplicative properties,
as the quantity it represents is null. "I do not have anything to say" and "I have
nothing to say" are not immediately perceived as equivalent. Furthermore, "having
noting" sounds quite different than "having zero", as "having zero" is in a way
analogous to having some positive quantity. Seife (2000) tells the story of Zero

176

CMEG-5

Intellectual Courage and

Mathematical Creativity

from its birth in Babylonian times, till present days. "It is the story of the people
who battled over the meaning of the mysterious number." (ibid)
Rafael Bombelli (1526-1573): Wild guessing, possibly nonsensical
Bombelli, the Italian mathematician, set out to resolve Cardan's confusion about
the solution of x 3 = 15 x + 4 . Cardan found the three (real) roots for this equation:
4, 2 3 . However, applying his general formula for solving cubic equations of
form x = ax + b ,
3

the

he

got

seemingly

fourth

solution:

x = 2 + 121 + 2 121 which tantalized his mind as he knew this was

impossible. Moreover, this result was "meaningless" as roots of negative integers
had no right to exist in those days.
3

Bombelli had a wild guess: He noticed that two of the solutions: 2 3 , and also
the two addends 2 + 121, 2 121 of this strange solution, differ only in the
sign of the square root. Hence, by analogy, he dared thinking that the same might
hold for their cubic roots: 3 2 + 121 and 3 2 121 . Thus, he assumed
3

2 + 121 = a + b and 3 2 121 = a b

for some real numbers a, b. Making another, possibly nonsensical move by

analogy, he applied real number arithmetic to some negative number roots, and he
was able to show that a=2, b=1 satisfy this system3. Back into Cardan's formula,
Bombelli resolved Cardan's problem showing that the third solution, 4, coincides
with Cardan's weird root as

x = 3 2 + 121 + 3 2 121 = 2 + 1 + 2 1 = 4 . In so doing, Bombelli

also opened the door for imaginary numbers arithmetic. (For more details see
Kleiner (1988)). "I respect conscious guessing because it comes from the best
human qualities: courage and modesty", says Imre Lakatos (1976, p.30), and he
further suggests that this is how new mathematical knowledge develops.

As we presently know:

(2 + 1)3 = 8 + 12 1 6 1 = 2 + 11 1 = 2 + 121 ,
and similarly (2

CMEG-5

1)3 = 2 121 .

177

Nitsa Movshovitz-Hadar

Claude de Meziriac (1581-1638): Solving a problem through its generalization

According to Drrie (1965), in a book published in 1624 The French
mathematician Claude Gaspard Bachet de Meziriac solved the 4-weight problem
by ignoring some given data thus approaching it through a more general case. The
original problem states:
A merchant had a 40-kg measuring weight that broke into four pieces as the
result of a fall. When the pieces were subsequently weighed, it was found
that the weight of each piece was a whole number of kilograms and that the
four pieces could be used to weigh every integral weight between 1 and 40
kg. What were the weights of the pieces?
As I pointed out in an earlier paper (Hadar and Hadass (1982b)) the natural
tendency is to focus on the numerical data 4, and 40. This may turn out to be quite
frustrating as it may lead to a dead end, while departing from the given numbers
and reformulating the original problem as a particular case of a more general
problem leads quite easily to the solution employing an inductive line of reasoning.
The more general problem being:
For any natural number n, find at least one set of integral weights with which
any integral load from 1 to n kg can be weighed; evaluate the different
possible sets for each value of n (e.g. in terms of economy).
Leonhard Euler (1707-1783): Connecting apparently disconnected areas (and
more)
It is impossible to choose one example that demonstrates Euler's mathematical
courage. Many books are devoted to the analysis of his multitude of mathematical
talents and unbelievable prolific writing (For example see: Dunham (1999), and
Opera Omnia available on line at http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~euler.) The
following example is sufficiently short to earn its inclusion here. Euler attacked a
century old unsolved problem of determining the sum of reciprocals of squares of

all positive integers:

n
n =1

, known to his predecessors, Leibniz and the Bernoulli

brothers to be convergent to a number less than 2. According to Dunham (1990),

"with a boldness to match his brilliance" Euler discovered and proved the sum to
converge to / 6 . To do so Euler had to go through a sequence of courageous
moves which represent his great mathematical vision and intuition. First of all he
had to abandon his curiosity driven straightforward computational approach, that
failed to lead him anywhere beyond the fact that the sum was tending to a peculiar
number as 1.6449, which made no sense to him. Challenged Euler then tied the
2

178

CMEG-5

Intellectual Courage and

Mathematical Creativity

ends of seemingly unconnected facts: He recalled from Trigonometry and Calculus

the Taylor series expansion of the trigonometric function:

x3 x5 x7 x9

x2 x4 x6
+ + ... , which he changed to x 1 + + ... .
3! 5! 7! 9!
3!
5!
7!

Keeping in his mind that for a finite polynomial P ( x ) of degree n with n roots
sin x = x

a1 , a2 , a3 ,..., an ,

if P (0) = 1 ,

then

x
x
x
x
P( x ) = 1 1 1 1 ,
a1 a2 a3 an

P( x)
he

can
then

be

factored

attempted

to

into:
solve

x2 x4 x6
+ + ... = 0 for which clearly f(0) = 1, in order to factor it
3! 5! 7!
accordingly, although this is NOT a finite polynomial. Euler observed that for
nonzero values of x, solving
f ( x) = 1

x2 x4 x6
f ( x ) = 1 + + ... =
3! 5! 7!

x2 x4 x6
1 3! + 5! 7! + ... sin x
x
=0
=
x
x

amounts to solving sin x = 0, yielding x = k , k=1,2,3, for the sought roots

of f(x) = 0. He had the foolhardiness or healthy intuition to (luckily successfully)
extend to infinite polynomials the theorem that he knew holds for finite
polynomials, obtaining

x
x
x
x
x
x

f ( x) = 1 1
1
1
1
1
...
2 2 3 3
and therefore

x2 x4 x6
x2
x2
x2
+ + ... = 1 2 1 2 1 2 ... .
3! 5! 7!
4 9

At this point Euler virtuosic manipulation of the infinite product in the right hand
side turned this equation from equality between a sum and a product into an
equality of two infinite sums of like powers of x:

x2 x4 x6
1
1
1

+ + ... = 1 2 + 2 + 2 + ... x 2 + (...) x 4 (...) x 6 + ... .

3! 5! 7!

CMEG-5

179

Nitsa Movshovitz-Hadar

Equating like powers, particularly the coefficients of x2, and further algebraic
manipulations lead him to the surprising result:
.1+

1 1 1
1
2
+ + +
+ ... =
4 9 16 25
6

The above is one of many examples of Euler's guts to attack problems that were
known to be difficult or nearly impossible to solve. His fruitful search for pairs of
amicable numbers is one of the many others. G. B. Dantzig (1914-2005), the father
of linear programming, who as a student at Berkeley solved two then unsolved
problem only because he came late to Jerzy Neyman's class and assumed that the
problems on the blackboard were mandatory homework, would probably attribute
Euler's courage to "positive thinking". The belief that it is doable and the inner
conviction that I can do it, are the two characteristics of positive thinking Dantzig
emphasized in a 1986 interview (Albers and Reid (1986).)
Euler exhibited intellectual courage in many more ways of which we'll mention
just his problem posing nerve (e.g. - is it possible to walk through all the 7 bridges
of Konigsberg without crossing any of them twice, coming back to the point of
departure?), and his obsession with searching for patterns (e.g. looking for a
property common to all convex polyhedra) which meant phrasing bold conjectures
on a regular basis.
It is difficult to conclude a section about Euler without mentioning one more aspect
of his creativity that is his bravery to give a conventional entity, such as the circle,
a fresh look by expanding its definition. Euler (1778) considered circular arc
rotors as a part of his geometry investigations of triangular curves. An extension of
the definition of a circle, the ultimate rotor crosscut shape and curve of constant
width, was needed in order to do it.
Karl Weierstrass (1815-1897): Constructing a counter intuitive counter
example, a monstrous function
Unlike Euler, Wierestrass did not publish much; nevertheless he earned the title
"the father of modern analysis" possibly due to his rigorous logical reasoning and
his talent as a lecturer and tutor to his students. His creative mathematics was
carried in parallel to 15 years of high school teaching prior to his appointment at
age 40 to the University of Berlin. His search for rigor in general and particularly
for polishing the notion of function, which was a center of attention in his life-time
period, gave rise to an extremely courageous move, forming a "monstrous"
function according to those days perception, continuous alas nowhere

differentiable:

f ( x ) = bn cos ( a n x ) , where a, b are chosen such that a is an

n =1

180

CMEG-5

Intellectual Courage and

Mathematical Creativity

odd integer, b is a real number in (0, 1), and their product ab > 1+3/2. Such a
function gave a blow to the intuitive perception of a continuous function that rested
on the "smooth" graphic representation of any such analytic expression, and
brought a change in the commonly accepted concept of function. (For more details
see, for example, Kleiner (1989).) Such a process of evolving concept definition is
well known in the history of mathematics. Not always, however, the appearance of
a counter example (which was usually an overwhelming experience to the
community) yielded an immediate change.
The Pythagoreans, for example, were NOT courageous enough to adapt their
notion of numbers when they discovered that a segment of length 2 presented a
"pathological" case. This shocking discovery that there are incommensurable
magnitudes was secretly kept and cleverly bypassed by the Greek mathematicians.
Legend has it (Eves (1983) Lecture 6) that the Pythagoreans banished Hippasus
and erected a tomb for him, for his impiety in disclosing the secret to outsiders.
The irrational numbers were admitted centuries later, not without a bitter debate.
Somewhat similar fate was that of the question of independence of the Parallel
Axiom, in Euclid's time, and the question of provability of Cantor's 1870
continuum hypothesis in set theory of modern time. The former had to wait till the
1800s when Bernhard Rieman (1826-1866) and Nikolai Lobachevsky (1792-1856)
courageously introduced Elliptic and hyperbolic non-Euclidean geometries
respectively, implying the independence of Euclid's 5th axiom. The latter was
resolved in part by Kurt Gdel (1906-1978) who in 1940 showed it was impossible
to disprove the continuum hypothesis, and finally completed in 1963 by Paul
Cohen (1934-2007) who showed that the continuum hypothesis is independent of
the usual Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms of set theory. This solved in an unexpected
way the first of the 23 problems that David Hilbert (1862-1943) posed in his very
influential address to the International Mathematical Union in 1900. Hilbert
examined the broad gamut of unsolved mathematical problems and identified 23 of
them as the most important challenges for mathematicians in the century ahead - a
yet another great example of intellectually courageous move.
Felix Hausdorff (1868 1942): Making a counterintuitive interconnection:
Dimension needs not be an integer
Euclidean space dimension d assumes the integer values 1, 2, or 3. If we take a
Euclidean object (a line segment, a square, a box) of dimension d, and reduce its
linear unit size by r in each spatial direction (namely making it 1/r of its original
size), its measure (length, area, or volume) becomes M = r as shown in Table 1.
d

In 1918 the German mathematician Felix Hausdorff treated M = r algebraically,

d

as

follows:

CMEG-5

M = r d log M = d log r . Consequently he made an

181

Nitsa Movshovitz-Hadar

intellectually courageous move suggesting that d need not be an integer. Since

log M
d=
it could be a fraction, he claimed! Benot Mandelbrot, who was born in
log r
1924 into a world that had recognized Hausdorff dimension, employed this
generalized treatment of dimension for his 1977 publication: Fractals: Form,
chance and dimension (Mandelbrot (1977).)
Table 1: The measure (M) of a Euclidean shape of dimension (d) if reduced by r in each
direction

Reduction
factor r

1
(Original
size)

Euclidean Dimension d
2

M=1
M=1
M=1

2
M= 21=2
M = 22=4
M = 23=8
3
M= 31=3
M = 32=9

M = 33=27

CONCLUDING REMARKS: EDUCATING MATHEMATICALLY

GIFTED STUDENTS
The examples given above are but a few from a huge assortment of examples that
the history of mathematics and contemporary mathematics can provide. They were
picked to demonstrate some intellectually courageous moves in mathematics as
exhibited in great mathematicians' work. A partial list of such moves includes:
Making a guess, employing a non-conventional mechanism, dismissing of some
data in order to clarify a complicated situation, adding an auxiliary component that
shed light on an otherwise obscured picture, raising a conjecture, making an
182

CMEG-5

Intellectual Courage and

Mathematical Creativity

assumption, connecting apparently unconnected mathematical facts, defining a new

concept or extending an existing definition, constructing a counter example,
identifying interesting problems, and more. This is by no mean an exhaustive set of
moves or examples.
There are many school level mathematical tasks that call for similar intellectually
courageous moves. E.g. Is there something in common to all triangles
circumscribed by one circle? Is there anything in common to all triangles? To all
quadrilaterals? To all polygons? In general, there is a good chance that searching
for a common property will yield some hypothesis testing and thereby require
courageous moves. Analogous thinking is another promising direction (For a few
examples see also: Movshovitz-Hadar (1988, 1993), Hadar and Hadass (1981a,
1981b, 1982a).)
Looking into the future of mathematics, the question is how to educate a brave
generation of mathematically talented youngsters? More precisely, what
mathematical experiences are appropriate for various age groups to empower them
to take intellectually courageous moves? And not less important, what kind of
teachers' attitudes and classroom atmosphere is sufficiently nourishing yet
adequately open to give them the strength to overcome a concern about the scrutiny
that their innovative ideas may be subjected to? To avoid impediment of creative
thoughts? To act courageously in mathematics?
The significance of these questions is their practical implications. An accumulative
set of valid mathematical tasks for various levels of school knowledge, calling for
intellectually courageous moves, needs be compiled, tested, analyzed, and finally
disseminated by this respectable research community to those who assume the
daily challenge of and responsibility for dealing with the mathematically gifted and
talented students. These teachers and mentors need to develop the ability to
identify intellectually courageous moves in their students' work, and give extra
credit for such moves.
Digging into the history of mathematics (i.e. from antiquity tillyesterday) to
identify great mathematicians' intellectually courageous moves, following the
modest attempt in this paper can shed light on more types of moves of this sort,
possibly classifying them in a more systematic way, and may also serve as eyeopener for teachers and mentors in identifying such moves carried out by their
novice talented students.

REFERENCES
Albers, D. and Reid, C., (1986): "An Interview of George B. Dantzig: The Father of Linear
Programming", College Mathematics Journal, 17, 4 pp. 293-314.

CMEG-5

183

Nitsa Movshovitz-Hadar
Cohen, P. J. (1963): The independence of the continuum hypothesis. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Science. USA: Part I, Vol.50, 1143-1148; Part II, Vol.51 (1964),
105-110
Davis, P. J. & Hersh, R. (1981): The Mathematical Experience, Birkhuser, Boston (pp.
241-245)
Drrie, H. (1965): 100 great problems of Elementary Mathematics, Dover Publications,
New York, pp.7-9.
Dunham, W. (1990): Journey Through Genius, the great theorems of mathematics, John
Wiley & sons inc., New York. (pp. 147-154).
Dunham, W. (1999): Euler: The Master of us all, The Mathematical Association of America,
P. O. Box 91112, Washington, D.C.
Eves, H. (1983): Great Moments in Mathematics, Vol. 1: Before 1650, Lecture 6: Resolution
of the first Crisis,, and Lecture 15: Blockhead. MAA Dolciani Mathematical Exposition
No. 5, The Mathematical Association of America.
Euler, L. (1778): "De Curvis Triangularibus", Originally published in Acta Academiae
Scientarum Imperialis Petropolitinae, 1778, 1781, pp. 3-30. Reprinted in Opera Omnia,
Series
1,
Volume
28,
pp.
298

321,
retrieved
from:
http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~euler , number E513.
Gdel, K. (1940): The consistency of the axiom of choice and of the generalized continuum
hypothesis, Princeton University Press.
Grattan-Guinness, I. (1970): The Development of the Foundations of Mathematical Analysis
from Euler to Riemann, MIT Press.
Hadar, N. & Hadass R. (1981a): An Analysis of Teaching Moves in the Teaching of the Sine
Theorem via Guided Discovery. International Journal of Mathematics Education in
Science and Technology, 12, 1, pp. 101-108.
Hadar, N. & Hadass R. (1981b): The Road to Solving a Combinatorial Problem is Strewn
with Pitfalls. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 4, pp. 435-443.
Hadar, N. & Hadass R. (1982a): Another Approach to Similar Triangles. Mathematics
Teaching, 101, pp. 33-35.
Hadar, N. & Hadass R. (1982b): "The 4-Weight Problem - A Pedagogical Account".
Mathematics in School, 11, 5, pp. 32-34.
Hilbert, D. (1900) : "Cantor's problem of the cardinal number of the continuum". Originally
published in German, "Cantors Problem von der Mchtigkeit des Continuums".Gttinger
Nachrichten
1900,
263-264.
English
Translation
retrieved
from:
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/hilbert/problems.html
Hitchcock, G. (2004): "Alien Encounters", Convergence, MAA on-line magazine where
mathematics, history and teaching interact. Retrieved from:
http://mathdl.maa.org/convergence/1/convergence/1/?pa=content&sa=viewDocument&n
odeId=435
Katz, V. J. (1993): A History of Mathematics, an introduction, Harper Collins College
Publishers, NY, p. 591.
Kleiner, I. (1988): "Thinking the unthinkable", Mathematics Teacher, 81, 7, pp. 583-592.

184

CMEG-5

Intellectual Courage and

Mathematical Creativity
Kleiner, I. (1989): "Evolution of the Function Concept: A Brief survey", College
Mathematics Journal, 20, pp. 282-300.
Lakatos, I. (1976): Proofs and Refutations, the Logic of Mathematical Discovery, New
York: Cambridge University press.
Mandelbrot, B. B. (1977): Fractals: Form, Chance and Dimension. San Francisco, CA: W.
H. Freeman and Company, 1977, xviii+265 pp. (A shorter French version published
1975, Paris: Flammarion).
Mann, E. L. (2005): Mathematical Creativity and School Mathematics: Indicators of Mathematical
Creativity in Middle School Students. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut. Retrieved
from: http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/Dissertations/Eric%20Mann.pdf
Maor, E. (1991): To Infinity and Beyond, A Cultural History of the Infinity (Chapter 10),
Princeton University Press. New Jersey.
Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (1988): School Mathematics Theorems - an Endless Source of
Surprise. For the Learning of Mathematics, Vol. 8, No. 3. Pp. 34-40.
Movshovitz-Hadar, N. (1993): A Constructive Transition from Linear to Quadratic
Functions, School Science and Mathematics. Vol. 93, no. 6, pp. 288 - 298.
Polya, G. (1954): Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, Princeton U. Press, p. 8.
Seife, C. (2000): Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, Penguin Books
Silver, E.A. (1997): "Fostering Creativity Through Instruction in Mathematical Problem
Solving and Problem Posing." International Review on Mathematical Education, 29, pp.
75-80.

", , :(1974) . ,
. "

CMEG-5

185