WIP¶
Mathematical rigor is the process by which one "proves" a mathematical statement.
I believe rigor should be a tool that is used to help someone understand the concept underlying a mathematical statement. However, often, in math classes at school, students are asked to be "rigorous" as proof of understanding. However, the ability to be rigorous, while correlated with understanding, is not .
For example, when students learn about quadratic equations, they learn about the quadratic formula:
They are taught "when you see a quadratic equation in the form \(ax^2+bx+c\) and need to find the roots, use this equation." However, while a student who knows this formula is more likely to understand the basics of quadratic functions, polynomials, parabolas, and roots, simply knowing the formula does not imply that the students understand these topics.
So if this example student is asked "What are the roots of \(x^2-3x+2\)?" and they answer "1 and 2, because of the quadratic formula" and show their work appropriately, they get that question correct on the test and move on, only remembering that there's that formula, while quickly forgetting what quadratics are, and probably, what the formula is.