Abstract
Looking at concrete representations of mathematical problems from an isomorphic perspective, this article suggests that every concrete representation of a mathematical concept is understood by reference to an underlying abstract representation in the mind of the comprehender. The complex form of every abstract representation of a problem is created by the gradual development of its elementary form. Throughout the process of cognitive development, new features are added to the elementary form of abstract representation, which leads to gradual formation of a fully developed abstract representation in the mind. Every developed abstract representation of a problem is the underlying source for understanding an infinite number of concrete isomorphic representations. Deep or abstract representations of a problem are shared by the concrete realizations or concrete forms of that problem. In other words, concrete representations of a problem are the realizations of a single abstract representation. This discussion is extended to mind-brain relationship and the possible isomorphism that could exist between mind and brain.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52, 215–241.
Benovsky, J. (2016). Dual aspect monism. Philosophical Investigations, 39(4), 335–352.
Bob, P. (2011). Brain, mind and consciousness: Advances in neuroscience research. Springer Science & Business Media.
Booth, R. L., & Thomas, M. J. (1999). Visualization in mathematics learning: Arithmetic problem-solving and student difficulties. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(2), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0732-3123(99)00027-9.
Brenner, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Moseley, B., Brar, T., Durán, R., Reed, B., & Webb, D. (1997). Learning by understanding: the role of multiple representations in learning algebra. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 663–689. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163353.
Cobb, P. (2002). Reasoning with tools and inscriptions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(2), 187–215. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls11,2-3n_3.
Disessa, A. A. (2000). Meta-representation: an introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(4), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0732-3123(01)00051-7.
Disessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293–331. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2203_2.
Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61, 103–131.
Epstein, W., & Hatfield, G. (1994). Gestalt psychology and the philosophy of mind. Philosophical Psychology, 7(2), 163–181.
Fanselow, M. S., Zelikowsky, M., Perusini, J., Barrera, V. R., & Hersman, S. (2013). Isomorphisms between psychological processes and neural mechanisms: From stimulus elements to genetic markers of activity. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 108, 5–13.
Fraleigh, J. B. (2003). A first course in abstract algebra (7th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Gray, E., Pitta, D., & Tall, D. O. (2000). Objects, actions, and images: A perspective on early number development. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(4), 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0732-3123(00)00025-0.
Judson, T. W. (2012). Abstract algebra: theory and applications. Orthogonal Publishing L3C.
Kandel, E. R., & Squire, L. R. (2000). Neuroscience: Breaking down scientific barriers to the study of brain and mind. Science, 290(5494), 1113–1120.
Khatin-Zadeh, O., & Vahdat, S. (2015). Abstract and concrete representations in structure-mapping and class-inclusion. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 2(2), 349–360.
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Vahdat, S., & Yazdani-Fazlabadi, B. (2016). An algebraic perspective on implicit and explicit knowledge. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 3(1), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.3.1.08kha.
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Yarahmadzehi, N., & Banaruee, H. (2018). A neuropsychological perspective on deep or abstract homogeneity among concretely different systems. Activitas Nervosa Superior, 60(2), 68–74.
Marmolejo-Ramos, F., Khatin-Zadeh., O, Yazdani-Fazlabadi, B., Tirado, C., & Sagi, E. (2017). Embodied concept mapping: blending structure-mapping and embodiment theories. Pragmatics & Cognition, 24(2), 164–185.
Moschkovich, J. N. (2008). “I went by twos, he went by one”: Multiple interpretations of inscriptions as resources for mathematical discussions. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(4), 551–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802395077.
Mulligan, J. T. (2011). Towards understanding of the origins of children’s difficulties in mathematics learning. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties., 16(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2011.563476.
Mulligan, J. T., Mitchelmore, M. C., English, L. D., & Robertson, G. (2010). Implementing a Pattern and Structure Awareness Program (PASMAP) in kindergarten. In L. Sparrow, B. Kissane, & C. Hurst (Eds.), Shaping the future of mathematics education: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia (pp. 797–804). Fremantle: MERGA.
Pitta-Pantazi, D., Gray, E., & Christou, C. (2004). Elementary school students’ mental representations of fractions. In M. J. Høines & A. Fuglestad (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 41–48). Bergen: Bergen University College.
RAND Mathematics Study Panel. (2003). Mathematical proficiency for all students. Santa Monica: RAND.
Rolls, E. T. (2012). Neuroculture: on the implications of brain science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rolls, E. T., & Deco, G. (2010). The Noisy brain: stochastic dynamics as a principle of brain function. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Selling, S. K. (2016). Learning to represent, representing to learn. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 41, 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.10.003.
Thomas, N., & Mulligan, J. T. (1995). Dynamic imagery in children's representations of number. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 7(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03217273.
Warren, E. (2005). Young children’s ability to generalize the pattern rule for growing patterns. In H. Chick & J. Vincent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th conference of the International Group for the Psychology of mathematics education (Vol. 4, pp. 305–312). Melbourne: Program Committee.
White, T., & Pea, R. (2011). Distributed by design: on the promises and pitfalls of collaborative learning with multiple representations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20(3), 489–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2010.542700.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Khatin-Zadeh, O., Banaruee, H., Eskandari, Z. et al. Isomorphism: Abstract and Concrete Representations. Act Nerv Super 61, 152–157 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41470-019-00029-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41470-019-00029-0