Anthyphairesis, the “originary” core of the concept of

fraction
Paolo Longoni, Gianstefano Riva, Ernesto Rottoli

To cite this version:

Paolo Longoni, Gianstefano Riva, Ernesto Rottoli. Anthyphairesis, the “originary” core of the concept
of fraction. History and Pedagogy of Mathematics, Jul 2016, Montpellier, France. �hal-01349271�

HAL Id: hal-01349271

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01349271
Submitted on 27 Jul 2016

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
 ANTHYPHAIRESIS, THE “ORIGINARY” CORE OF THE
CONCEPT OF FRACTION

Paolo LONGONI, Gianstefano RIVA, Ernesto ROTTOLI

Laboratorio didattico di matematica e filosofia. Presezzo, Bergamo, Italy
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
In spite of efforts over decades, the results of teaching and learning fractions are not satisfactory. In response to
this trouble, we have proposed a radical rethinking of the didactics of fractions, that begins with the third grade
of primary school. In this presentation, we propose some historical reflections that underline the “originary”
meaning of the concept of fraction. Our starting point is to retrace the anthyphairesis, in order to feel, at least
partially, the “originary sensibility” that characterized the Pythagorean search. The walking step by step the
concrete actions of this procedure of comparison of two homogeneous quantities, results in proposing that a
process of mathematisation is the core of didactics of fractions. This process begins recording the act of
comparison by a pair of natural numbers, and is realized in the Euclidean division. Classroom activities ensure
that children perceive the Euclidean division as the icon of their active process of learning. The Euclidean
division becomes the core of many feedback loops along which the teaching process is developed.

1 Introduction
The scientific literature we have seen for a period of about fifty years, reports that, in spite of
the efforts both in research and in practice, results of teaching and learning fractions are not
satisfactory and difficulties are widespread and persistent.1
Some causes of these difficulties, widely discussed in scientific literature, are: (a) The
multi-faced structure of rational numbers.2 This feature is well represented in the scheme of
the "sub-constructs of the construct of rational number" proposed by Kieren.3 (b) Another
obstacle: research and teaching practice have proposed teaching-learning processes that are
often based on an unique pattern of action. This approach implies some difficulties in
transferring the acquired knowledge to other situations. In teaching practice, the situation of
division, associated to the part-whole substructure, is used in most cases.4 It is important to

1
Among the many quotes, we choose the following two, distant in time. “The concept of fraction has manifested
itself in education as a refractory one” [Streefland, 1978]. “It is now well known that fractions are difficult
concepts to learn as well as to teach” [Tunç-Pekkan, 2015].
2
“Rational numbers should be a mega-concept involving many interwoven strands” [Wagner (1976) in Kieren,
1980].
3
The five Kieren’s sub-constructs are: part-whole, quotients, measure, ratios, operators. Other possible
subconstructs are: proportionality, point on the number line, decimal number and so on.
4
The scientific literature has largely confirmed that the situation of division has limited effectiveness [Nunez &
Bryant, 2007].
stress that this teaching choice may also develop inhibitions.5 (c) The natural numbers bias
causes confusion between the features related to natural numbers and those related to
fractions.6 In scientific literature there are two attitudes. The one supports continuity between
natural numbers and fractions.7 The other considers the universe of fractions as a new
universe, with its own rules and properties.8
The prolonged poor results in teaching and learning fractions have produced different
conducts. Sometimes the purpose of teaching is to master the rules for calculating with
fractions, without making an explicit connection between calculation and conceptual
understanding.9 Another option has been to postpone the teaching of the fractions.10
In Italy we have experienced a paradoxical situation: while the unsatisfactory results
highlighted by research are widely acknowledged in middle and in high school, on the
contrary, in primary school teachers mostly percept the teaching and learning fractions as
easy.11
2 Historical reflections
These considerations, along with the direct experience in teaching, led us to a radical
rethinking of the didactics of fractions. The resulting unusual project begins with the third
grade of primary school and is characterized by five key points. (1) It is a process of
familiarization with fractions rather than a process of teaching and learning them; this point,
taken from Davydov12, must be interpreted within the ZPD.13 (2) From the didactic point of

5
“Not only 'part of a whole' diagrams are possibly misleading, but, more seriously, it will be argued later that
their use may well inhibit the development of other interpretations of a fraction …”. [Kerslake, 1986]. The
development of inhibitions has received not adequate attention both by researchers and by teachers.
6
“The natural number bias is known to explain many difficulties learners have with understanding rational
numbers.” [Van Hoof, Verschaffel & Van Dooren, 2015].
7
“The major hypothesis to be tested was that children could (and should) reorganize their whole number
knowledge in order to build schemes for working with fractional quantities and numbers (the rational numbers of
arithmetic) in meaningful ways.” [Behr, Harel, Post & Lesh, 1992].
8
“Kieren argues that rational number concepts are different from natural number ones in that they do not form
part of a child's natural environment” [Kerslake, 1986].
9
This choice had already been confuted in the Erlwanger’s seminal article: “Benny’s case indicates that a
mastery of content and skill does not imply understanding.” [Erlwanger, 1973].
10
“Instruction in rational numbers should be postponed until the student has reached the stage of formal
operations.” [Kieren, 1980].
11
This perception is explained by the fact that the only sub-construct proposed to children is the part-whole one.
This choice allows structuring a feasible proposal and building evaluation processes with satisfactory results on
average. However, this type of proposal can produce some inhibitions that will burden on the later learning
process of rational numbers, causing the difficulties highlighted by research.
12
In the 60s of the last century, Davydov has experienced an interesting approach to the concept of fraction in
some schools at Moscow. This approach is distinct from those favoured in Western school: Davydov researches
the “objective origin of the concept of fraction” and he identifies it in the measure (as in the measure he
identifies the objective origin of the concept of multiplication) [Davydov, 1991]. Following this approach, he
builds a practical, unitary and coherent teaching proposal, that we have experienced in our classrooms and that
has contributed significantly to the construction of our proposal.
view, fractions are a new universe, with its own rules and properties, distinct from the
universe of natural numbers. (3) The process of mathematisation begins with the act of
identifying the comparison between two homogeneous quantities with a pair of natural
numbers, and characterizes itself as “elementary and fundamental”. (4) The measure of a
quantity is defined as the comparison between the quantity and the “whole”, while the term
“unit” is assigned to indicate the common unit between quantity and whole. (5) The dialogy14
among the activities, that consists in choosing the most appropriate manipulative to introduce
a specific property, should create a “polyphony” among the different activities; so each of
them finds meaning in the others and gives meaning to them.
A more detailed structure of the project is presented elsewhere.15 Here we intend to do a
historical reflection, because history is “the site” where our project has arisen and has found
its structure; in this site we have looked for the “originary”16 meaning of the concept of
fraction and we have found some foundational aspects that allow to rethink its didactics.
Our research has begun with a suggestion emerged thanks to the speech of Imre Toth at
the conference held in Bergamo in 1999.17 He exhorted to listen to hidden meanings that
could still be kept in the Pythagorean mathematics and in the mathematics of the Platonic
Academy. That's how we discovered the anthyphairesis. In the Appendix 1 we present the
procedure of the anthyphairetic comparison. This method of comparison did not last long. Its
crisis came with the discovery of incommensurable quantities18 and its difficulties were
contrasted by the effectiveness of the Euclidean algorithm. This latter overshadowed the
anthyphairetic comparison, which was consequently forgotten.19

13
In our activity of familiarisation with the concept of fraction we provide children with “a broad base of
experiences both practical and linguistic” [Nunez & Bryant, 2007] and we assess the actions and reactions of
children properly guided.
14
The word “dialogy” is taken from Bakhtin. It has been preferred to the word "dialogue" because it keeps some
characteristics of the Bakhtin’s thought, as “voices”, “formative interaction”, “polyphony”, that better pinpoint
the sense of our proposal. There are two ways of expressing this word: “dialogy” and “dialogism”. The second is
partially compromised by the excessive use of the suffix "ism" made in the twentieth century.
15
We presented a first version of our project at Cieaem 67 in Aosta [Alessandro, Bonissoni, Carpentiere,
Cazzola, Longoni, Riva, & Rottoli, 2015]. An updated version will be presented at ICME 13 in Hamburg.
16
The word “originary” is not an English word. Nevertheless, some authors (Roth & Radford, 2011) are
beginning to use it. In this way the wealth of meaning possessed by the corresponding term
“originario/originaire” that is used in continental philosophy, is recovered.
17
“Matematica, Storia e Filosofia: quale dialogo nella cultura e nella didattica?” Bergamo, 1999, May 19.
18
“Consideration of the non terminating anthyphairesis of incommensurable magnitudes would lead to serious
philosophical problems and technical mathematical difficulties… . When the ratio theory, based on
anthyphairesis, was abandoned for Book V – style proportion theory, the interest in anthyphairesis as a
mathematical procedure would greatly diminish, and the details of its erstwhile connection with ratio would be
forgotten.” [Fowler, 1979].
19
The effectiveness of the Euclidean algorithm results from its direct operating on numbers and from its
characterization as a much faster multiplicative process. The additive–subtractive feature of the Pythagorean
procedure was thereby lost; an additive-subtractive feature we bring to light by retracing step by step the
procedure.
 Walking step by step the concrete actions of the anthyphairetic process, we have met
some indications stored in it and still potentially significant: indications of historical type, as
this walking allows to listen again to not secondary aspects of Greek philosophy;20 indications
of mathematical type, as it highlights a “physical” language for rational numbers21 and it
enables an unusual outlook on intrinsic reciprocity;22 indications of pedagogical type, which
have moved our project.
3 Pedagogical indications
As shown in Appendix 2, the anthyphairetic comparison produces a binary string and a pair of
numbers. The binary string is a “physical” language for rational numbers; the pair of numbers
is the “logos”,23 that makes “effable”24 the comparison. So the Pythagorean statement “all is
number” acquires the characteristic of a search for a "scientific" procedure in the description
of nature, and the anthyphairetic procedure is a primitive form of mathematical knowledge of
it. This is the indication from which our educational project has began. The objective of our
slow retracing step by step this archaic procedure of comparison, was not the trivial

20
The additive-subtractive feature that characterizes this procedure reflects the time of thinking of the
Pythagoreans. To listen to this time permits to feel, at least in part, their astonishment in front of the number; the
astonishment that led them to say that everything is number. In fact, if you think you establish an unit of measure
among homogeneous quantities, each of them has its own additive-subtractive structure expressed by a logos.
Overcoming the lack of homogeneity of the real world by the “arché”, the unit becomes the Parmenidean One,
with which to compare every quantity. So every quantity has its own additive-subtractive structure in its
comparison with the One; a structure expressed by a pair of numbers: everything is number.
21
In the Appendix 2 we show how, marking the sequence of actions of the comparison by modern symbols, it is
possible to build a binary string. In this way each rational number can be expressed by a binary string. While the
correspondence between the set of natural numbers and the set of binary strings is the foundation of the
contemporary sciences of information and computers, the correspondence between the set of rational numbers
and the set of binary strings seems not to be the subject of adequate attention.
22
Retracing the steps of the anthyphairetic comparison, the reciprocity between the two compared quantities
comes evident. The role of reciprocity in teaching and learning fractions is under discussion in scientific
literature [Thomson & Saldanha, 2003]. But we believe that, by retrieving the reciprocity with the characteristics
that it shows in the anthyphairetic comparison, the investigation could be provided with useful new indications.
For example, the intrinsic reciprocity of anthyphairesis suggests the possibility to go sometimes beyond the
usual definition of quantity: “ … a quantity is completely determined in mathematics when a set of elements and
the criteria of comparison are determined… The comparison is usually traced back to the application of the
relation “equal to”, major to” or “minor to” [Davydov, 1991]. Intrinsic reciprocity might enrich the criteria of
comparison and, therefore, the concept of quantity and the process of measure. We like to think that the fact of
bringing reciprocity at the heart of the measure may provide insights into the challenges that complexity today
presents, especially in the presence of quantities of dual nature.
23
The Greek word “logos” that the Pythagoreans use for denoting the pairs of numbers obtained by
anthyphairetic comparison, is a polysemic word that acquired different meanings in the historical course of
ancient Greece: word, speech, talk, oration, discourse, ratio, logic, cause, rationale. At the Pythagoreans, it looks
like a wonderful synthesis of two different meanings: the one comes from the verb “légein”, that is “to bind”, “to
relate”; the other is contained in the meaning of “voice”, “speech”, that, already at that time, the word “logos”
had taken. Its translation in the Latin word “ratio” has originated the wording “rational numbers”.
24
The word “effable” conveys, in addition to the meaning of “capable of being expressed”, also the effort of the
search and the wonder of the discovery: what is indescribable and could not be adequately expressed in words,
becomes expressible thanks to the logos. The word “effable” hints also at the broad discussion on
"commensurability" that troubled the world of the Pythagoreans.
knowledge of the procedure; according to Toth’s indications, our aim was to retrace the
procedure in order to feel, at least partially, the “originary sensibility”25 that characterized the
Pythagorean search.
3.1 The comparison
Consequently, differently from how we acted time ago [Rottoli & Riva, 2000], when we
proposed the anthyphairetic procedure in some classrooms of a high school, in our present
project this procedure is not directly used. Instead we have tried to make operating the
originary feature of this basic form of mathematical knowledge: the act of comparison is a
pair of natural numbers. This feature becomes the starting point for teaching the concept of
fraction in primary school.
To this end, we have proposed to the children of two third classes of primary school,
numerous and diverse activities of recording the act of comparing two homogeneous
quantities by a pair of natural numbers. The children have worked with discrete and
continuous quantities. As regards the activities with discrete quantities, the decisive choice of
the teacher in order to motivate the act of comparison, has been to associate it to a game, the
game of multiplication tables.26 As regards the comparison of continuous quantities, we have
made use of the activities with water, proposed by Davydov. The children have represented
all the comparisons by squares or segments and by a formula of the type A;B = 13;8 : “the
comparison between the quantities A and B is the pair of numbers 13;8”.

25
The wording “originary sensibility” is taken from Roth and Radford, 2011, but it has here a different nuance
of meaning. While in Roth and Radford its interpretation is “achieved as part of a categorical reconstruction of
the human psyche on evolutionary grounds”, here we give it the meaning of sensory experience obtained by
retracing step by step the actions that constitute the process of the anthyphairetic comparison. It is this sensibility
that, in our case, makes effable the “originary”. According to the philosophical reflections about the “arché” (see
note 20), the “originary” as substantive, is identifiable with the true substance and is referable only to the
absolute One, which is “ineffable”. What becomes “effable” is its adjectival transformation, that is its
transformation in being, linked to the bodily-historical sensibility.
26
The teacher prepares a special deck. A multiplication is written on each card. The class is divided into two
groups. The teacher plays a card and reads the multiplication. The group who first gives the product wins a
candy that is put in the basket of the group. If the answers of both groups are almost simultaneous, each group
wins a candy. At the end, there is the comparison of the candies won by each group.
 Figure 1. Examples taken from the exercise books: on the left the comparison between
discrete quantities; on the rigth the comparison between continuous quantites
In order to understand the contribution that the historical reflection has given to our
project, it may be interesting to compare the evocative/indicative meaning of the word
“logos”,27 used in our approach, with the formalized meaning of the term “ratio” used by
Lachance and Confrey.28 In their introduction of the concept of fraction, starting from the
subconstruct ratio, they look in the direction of the "broader" subconstruct, which would
contain all the other subconstructs. We refer instead to history in order to “e-vocate”, by an
endeavour to listen to “originary sensations”, and to investigate towards “indications” we
receive from this listening.
3.2 The measure

27
Leopardi, in the “Zibaldone”, underlined the difference between the meanings of “word” and “term”.
Differently from the scientific, rigid meaning associated with "term", “word” has evocative value: “evocative”
because it brings to light some meanings that have belonged to other poetic contexts. We interpret “evocative” as
opening to new directions of investigation.
28
“Using multiple contexts and experiences, we hope to guide students to first explore and understand a broad
construct such as ratio and use that understanding to explore more specific instances of that construct such as
fraction, decimal and percent.” [Lachance & Confrey, 2002]. Certainly the search in the direction of “the
broader”, characterizes many investigations of the twentieth century. But we hope, by the search in the direction
of “originary sensations”, to be entered in resonance with one of the many echoes that come from the world of
originary.
 Figure 2. Examples of activities of measure
The procedure of anthyphairetic comparison highlights features that the usual process of
measure leaves aside: the reciprocity between the two compared quantities and the search for
a common unit. With regard to the role of reciprocity, we refer to what previously said. The
search for a common unit characterizes the introduction of the concept of measure within our
teaching process. Here the measure is defined as the comparison between a quantity and the
“special” quantity called “whole”. The term "unit" is reserved to indicate the common unit.
The children yet make use of discrete and continuous manipulative: egg boxes, lego, packages
of candies, picture cards; water, cakes, stripes of paper and so on. The special nature of the
whole is highlighted by the special symbol “W” and by colouring. Also in this situation, all
comparisons are represented by squares or segments. In order to write the
comparison/measure, a special symbol is used: B/W = 25/6. This pair of numbers is the
fraction: “The measure of the quantity B with respect to the whole W is the fraction 25/6”.
3.3 Euclidean Division as core of the didactic activity
An important achievement of our proposal is that the children arrive naturally to write,
already in the third grade, the formula of Euclidean division: Z/W= 16/5 = 3+1/5.

Figure 3. Euclidean division in a exercise book.

This achievement completes the process of mathematisation concerning the didactics of
fraction: it starts by associating the act of comparing with a pair of natural numbers and is
realized in the Euclidean division. Thanks to this approach, the Euclidean division is
experienced by the children not as a formula to be memorized, but as the icon of their active
process of learning.
This mathematisation, which differs from modelling,29 characterizes itself as elementary
and fundamental. It is elementary because turned to “the originary elements”, but also by
reason of the "lightness" [Calvino, 1988] with which the children have lived these activities:
their answer has been quiet, serene, with adequate results. Il is fundamental because it
determines the structure of the new universe of fractions; a structure that has the Euclidean
division as core.
As the Euclidean division is the core of the universe of fractions, their teaching follows
a particular proceeding: teaching is not a linear path of accumulation of consecutive learning;
it is composed of many feedback loops: they start from the core, immerse in the contexts that
are characterized by the different subconstructs, and return to the core. It is in this sense that
we affirm that all “subconstructs of the construct of rational number”, have their roots in the
Euclidean division and find unity in it.
4 Concluding remarks
“In classroom activities, the children's answer was light, that is quiet, serene, with adequate
results.”30
The teachers have found many difficulties: only 10% continued the started activity.
Notwithstanding common manipulative are used mostly, the teachers are asked to change
their way of seeing and thinking, in order to discover objects, properties, operations that
belong to the new universe. According to Thomas Kuhn31, they are called for a change of
“paradigm”, for a “revolution” that upsets their habitual way of seeing and thinking fractions.
This change should produce acquisition of awareness32, reshaping the way of teaching
proceeding33, structuring the mutual interaction among teacher, class and research34.

29
“Mathematisation” differs from “modelling”: while “modelling applies a fragment of mathematics to a
fragment of reality” [Israel, 2002], mathematisation has an “universal” meaning, because it guides the
structuring of the universe of fractions as a new universe, distinct from the universe of natural numbers.
30
Here some examples of adequate results: - Children, already in the third grade, consider the pair of numbers
that form the fraction as a number (the number of packs). - Immediately and by themselves, children connect the
fraction to the division. - In fourth grade children naturally know that in a decimal number (for example 3.7) 3
indicates the wholes and 7 indicates the decimal part. (d) Children can put themselves properly in front of some
problems containing concepts not yet unfolded. In the experiment of the candle: Teacher: “We know that the
oxygen constitutes 21% of the air; how much the water grows in the glass when the candle goes out?” “It is
difficult to divide the container into 100 parts; we can divide it into ten parts.” So children calculate roughly
where the water comes. The topic “percentage” has not yet been presented in the classroom.
31
We make an analogical use of the Kuhn’s concept of “scientific revolution”.
32
A double awareness: the awareness that comes from the at least partial recovery of the "originary sensibility"
that gives meaning to this mathematisation process; the awareness that some concepts are fundamental in
“scaffolding” the universe of fractions.
33
As mentioned above, the central importance of Euclidian division requires that didactic proceeding is
structured in the form of feedback loops.
Appendix 1: Anthyphairesis
The anthyphairesis of two homogeneous quantities is a method of repeated removing and
consists in subtracting the smaller of the two quantities from the larger one; after each
removing, the larger quantity is replaced by the excess, while the smaller one stays
unchanged. The process continues until the excess obtained by removing, is equal to the
unchanged quantity.35
If you consider, for example, two segments, you can compare them in the following
way:

The result of the comparison (if the process terminates) is the unit U, common to both
segments. Each segment contains the common unit a certain number of times: A = nU; B =
mU.

34
In the interaction between teacher and class, teacher listens to and is guided by the class in the development of
teaching proposal; in the interaction between teacher and researcher, the effectiveness of the didactic path is
continually rethought.
35
The word anthyphairesis comes from the ancient Greek and its etymology is the following: anti–hipo–hairesis
/ reciprocal–sub–traction. Aristotle uses for the same procedure the term antanairesis: anti–ana–hairesis /
reciprocal–re–traction. [Zellini, 1999]
Appendix 2: Logos
Our going step by step along the ancient procedure of anthyphairetic comparison, is
characterized by the modern attitude of using symbols to indicate the action taken in each
step. For example, the previous comparison between the quantities A and B looks like this:

The following chart uniquely represents the comparison:

S C
S C
S C
C S
S C

To get how many times the quantities A and B contain the common unit, it is enough to
turn upside down the chart and to retrace it, reading “S” as “Sum” rather than “Subtraction”:
1U 1U
S C
2U 1U
C S
2U 3U
S C
5U 3U
S C
8U 3U
S C
11 U 3U
A B

So A = 11U and B = 3U
The comparison has produced the chart, which may be expressed by the binary string
SSSCS, and the pair of numbers (11;3). The binary string is a “physical” language for rational
numbers. The pair of numbers is the “logos”.

REFERENCES
Alessandro, S., Bonissoni, P., Carpentiere, S., Cazzola, M., Longoni, P., Riva, G., & Rottoli, E. (2015).
Familiariser avec les nombres fractionnaires : Ressources et obstacles. In B. Di Paola, & C. Sabena
(Eds.), Teaching and learning mathematics: resources and obstacles, Proceedings of CIEAEM 67
(Aosta), Quaderni di ricerca didattica, 25(2) (pp. 109-114). Palermo: University of Palermo.
Behr, M., Harel, G., Post, T., & Lesh, R. (1992). Rational number, ratio and proportion. In D. Grouws (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning (pp. 296-333). NY: Macmillan
Publishing.
Calvino, I. (1988). Lezioni americane. Milano: Garzanti Editore.
Davydov, V. V., & Tsvetkovich, Z. H. (1991). On the objective origin of the concept of fractions. Focus on
Learning Problems in Mathematics, 13(1).
Erlwanger, H. (1973). Benny’s conception of rules and answers in IPI mathematics. Journal of Children
Mathematical Behavior 1, 7-26.
Fowler, D. H. (1979). Ratio in early Greek mathematics. Bulletin (New Series) of the American Mathematical
Society. 1, 807-846.
Israel, G. (2002). Modelli matematici. Roma: Franco Muzzio Editore.
Kerslake, D. (1986). Fractions: Children's strategies and errors. A Report of the strategies and errors in
Secondary Mathematics Project (pp. 1-139). Windsor: The NFER-NELSON Publishing Company Ltd.
Kieren, T. E. (Ed.) (1980). Recent research on number learning. Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Clearing house for
Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Kuhn, T. S. (1978). La struttura delle rivoluzione scientifiche. Torino: Einaudi.
Lachance, A., & Confrey, J. (2002). Helping students build a path of understanding from ratio and proportion to
decimal notation. Journal of Mathematical Behavior. 20, 503–526.
Leopardi, G. (1949) Zibaldone di pensieri. A cura di Francesco Flora. Milano: Classici Mondadori.
Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2007). Understanding rational numbers and intensive quantities. In Key understandings
in mathematics learning, Paper 3 (pp. 1-31). Nuffield Foundation.
Roth, W. M., & Radford, L. (2011). A cultural-historical perspective on mathematics teaching and learning.
Rotterdam / Boston / Taipei: Sense Publishers.
Rottoli, E., & Riva, G. (2000). The antiphairesis: A site of an educational dialogue among mathematics, history
and philosophy. In W.-S. Horng, & F.-L. Lin (Eds.), Proceedings of the HPM 2000 conference: History
in mathematics education: Challenges for a new millennium. Vol. II (pp. 94-102). Taipei: Department of
Mathematics, National Taiwan Normal University
Streefland, L. (1978). Some observational results concerning the mental constitution of the concept of fraction.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 9,51-73.
Thomson, P. W., & Saldanha, L. A. (2003). Fractions and multiplicative reasoning. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G.
Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A Research Companion to Principles and Standards for School
Mathematics (pp. 95-114). Resto, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Toth, I. (1997). Aristotele e i fondamenti assiomatici della geometria. Prolegomeni alla comprensione dei
frammenti non-euclidei nel «Corpus Aristotelicum» nel loro contesto matematico e filosofico. Milano:
Vita e Pensiero Editrice.
Van Hoof, J., Verschaffel, L., & Van Dooren, W. (2015). Inappropriately applying natural number properties in
rational number tasks: Characterizing the development of the natural number bias through primary and
secondary education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 90, 39-56.
Tunç-Pekkan, Z. (2015). An analysis of elementary school children’s fractional knowledge depicted with circle,
rectangle, and number line representations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 89, 419-441.
Zellini, P. (1999). Gnomon. Un’indagine sul numero. Milano: Adelphi Edizioni.