HW reading: Lockharts's Lament

 As a maths major, I feel a little bit aggrieved whenever some of my classmates are surprised to hear that I am studying maths, thinking that maths is purely logical proofs, hard and cold formulas, and boring lists of numbers. Often the rigor of logic, the golden ratio of geometry, as Lockhart said, the creation of mathematics is an art that requires experience, trial and error, and luck. In this way, I am reminded of a class I took at the end of college called knot theory, where the shape of a piece of thread tied into different knots, and the shape of lye-knotted bread, all have mathematical significance in them. I couldn't help but be shocked when I learned the deeper logical principles. At the same time, I agree with him when he says, "Maths is the art of explanation." It's in the proofs, it's in the explanations, such as, "Why is this line drawn here?", "Why do we have an unknown number here? ” The inner beauty of mathematics is something that needs to be thought about and felt, and if it were just told, it would be boring and rigid.

But the point I don't really agree with is that I think Lockhart is a bit too idealistic, and I admit that the way maths is taught in schools these days is too formulaic. But it's not very realistic for teachers to change maths lessons completely. After all, classroom time is very short, and maths at younger ages is more instrumental. It is not easy for many students to learn the tools in the classroom, let alone understand the "art" of maths. 

I think Lockhart's idea of the "beauty" of maths and Skemp's idea of relational understanding have something in common, in that they both express that maths is a subject that needs to be explored and explored more deeply.