[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: xmca <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>*Subject*: [xmca] Why "Natural" Numbers?*From*: David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>*Date*: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:03:26 -0800 (PST)*Delivered-to*: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu*Dkim-signature*: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1258268606; bh=GyoNp4G1gRMbfnwzgtN7lVdKrcrSbvEZUcONVrZyJbE=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=NE/2/chcyvlCA3iLySbfvGh2sAK0pVMpvWlmuI7o03icrrBF9T9DlaqpRFgfrgzodTiaFRau0yRKfEC+Lfq3wQ2eNe4Pf4IM7zJWv2UgWYXiqUjwa9Uo0YiI1UEBhsFGQI3ERlhI4kHaTo1xjofBbLaIS3YLzLhFnYw0NKebeZA=*Domainkey-signature*: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=i1wEWySjQO2mi6bsf70pbnk1hURKtBotUQ4XNKAm3/vEd762yguo8Cldvsnw3AjjjfgluB8j6dSkUDT50MHTJrkRysSa3WvEYHug14TXOrkg+wUmHyyiskC4ajYRdp0GOCFx8bYh5k9s5Pcc+/LpCA7P/B/glDaMRCppfNciYuY=;*List-archive*: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>*List-help*: <mailto:xmca-request@weber.ucsd.edu?subject=help>*List-id*: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>*List-post*: <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>*List-subscribe*: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:xmca-request@weber.ucsd.edu?subject=subscribe>*List-unsubscribe*: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:xmca-request@weber.ucsd.edu?subject=unsubscribe>*Reply-to*: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>*Sender*: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu

Can any of the marvelous mathematics educators on this list help me out? I have a lecture to give tomorrow on Davydov and Schmittau, and I just realized that I have not the faintest idea why the "natural" numbers are called that. I know why the reals are real and the rationals are rational and why the irrationals are irrational. But I haven't a clue what is "natural" about the naturals. A quick trip through Wikipedia is even more confusing: it turns out that the canonical set of naturals used in mathematics includes zero! Now what the devil is "natural" about the number zero? I suppose a stupid answer is that "natural" numbers are connected to "natural" meaning, the sort of meaning that Vygotsky talks about when he speaks of theories of meaning that do not distinguish between language meanings and "meaning" that we find in nature (just as there are acoustic theories of phonetics that do not distinguish between language sounds and those that we find in nature). But somehow that suggests that counting is somehow more characteristic of animal behavior than measuring. That can't be right. It's easy to think of examples of animals eyeballing a distance before they attempt to leap it, and Vygotsky himself talks about how a dog can distinguish between two heaps of treats without counting them. (Interestingly, if you look at Paula's video of the eight year old subject doing the Vygotsky blocks test you'll find lots of examples of measuring but no examples of counting!) David Kellogg Seoul National University of Education _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [xmca] Why "Natural" Numbers?***From:*Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>

**Re: [xmca] Why "Natural" Numbers?***From:*Anna Sfard <annasfar@math.msu.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**RE: [xmca] Emotions and methodology** - Next by Date:
**Re: [xmca] Why "Natural" Numbers?** - Previous by thread:
**[xmca] FW: Summer Institute in Qualitative Research** - Next by thread:
**Re: [xmca] Why "Natural" Numbers?** - Index(es):