Slashdot Mirror
Study Suggests the Number-Line Concept Is Not Intuitive
An anonymous reader writes "The Yupno people of New Guinea have provided clues to the origins of the number-line concept, and suggest that the familiar concept of time may be cultural as well. From the article: 'Tape measures. Rulers. Graphs. The gas gauge in your car, and the icon on your favorite digital device showing battery power. The number line and its cousins – notations that map numbers onto space and often represent magnitude – are everywhere. Most adults in industrialized societies are so fluent at using the concept, we hardly think about it. We don't stop to wonder: Is it 'natural'? Is it cultural? Now, challenging a mainstream scholarly position that the number-line concept is innate, a study suggests it is learned."
I just watched a documentary about this on Netflix, called The Story of 1, starring Terry Jones of Monty Python fame.I think it mentioned the ruler wasn't invented until sometime in ancient egypt.
... and in the DRM, bind them.
Try getting a bunch of 10-year-olds to understand the number line concept and you will find out in approximately 3 seconds that it is not innate.
I wonder how far this goes! Is the notion of the counting numbers innate? I have heard that monkeys cannot count beyond 4. The way that people figured this out is that if five hunters go into a forest as a group, split up and hide. Then one by one, four hunters leave one at a time. The fifth hunter stays in hiding, the monkeys come out of hunting, and the hunter shoots a monkey. This does not happen when there are less than five hunters initially.
Any measuring cup will tell you a number line can be very intuitive. Stacking objects, filling a container; many everyday tasks are perfect physical examples of a number line.
Rulers are another example, though perhaps a bit less physical or intuitive.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
I don't have the reference to hand but I recall there is a South American tribe which don't have words for left and right as most languages do. There words are equivalent to "Up Valley" and "Down Valley" Similarly, if I recall correctly, there's a Native American language that uses before and behind as an analog for time but the other way around to most languages. Their analogy is that you know the past and you can see what it in front of you so forward = the past. You can't see behind you and you don't know the future so behind = the future
... because I use complex numbers for everything, you insensitive clod. Don't you have any feelings for the one dimensionally-challenged?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
The same subject has been covered in "Here's looking to Euclid". It describes tests done on an Amazon tribe to see how they visually interpret numbers. Unlike most modern adults who visualize number spaced linearly, they visualized them spaced logarithmically. Their reasoning was that the intervals between numbers start (relatively) large and become smaller as the numbers get larger. i.e. from 1 to 2 it's a 100% increase but from 2 to 3 it's only a 33% increase and so on.
If you read the article, you'll see that the subjects of the study do understand order, but that they lack the intuition of another property of the number line that you are so accustomed to that you're not aware of it. When asked to place numbers from 1 to 10 in order, control subjects (from the US) produce an arrangement like this:
1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10
The people of the Yupno Valley tend to do something more like this:
1.2.3.4...................5.6.7.8.9.10
A number line has more than order; it also has equal spacing. That idea seems not to be innate.
In the original task, people are shown a line and are asked to place numbers onto the line according to their size, with "1" going on the left endpoint and "10" (or sometimes "100" or "1000") going on the right endpoint.
Go to a class of college students in america, ask them to mark 10, 1 million, and 1 billion on a line, and 99% of them will draw 1 million closer to 1 billion. Usually a lot closer.
I read the article, and it wasn't clear to me what these people have discovered. Maybe I'll have to read the actual study. Or maybe anthropologists are better at understanding primitive cultures than their own.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I don't know why this result is surprising. I thought it was generally understand that counting (there are 10 sheep) and measurement (this fence is 10 feet long) were distinct concepts. The point of the number line is to establish a relationship between the two concepts.
Come to think of it, it should be obvious that a number line relates two distinct concepts, just from the form they usually take. A number line, with its regularly spaced markings perpendicular to the main line, has a form similar to that of a line graph, which shows a relationship between two distinct variables.
I once took a course in "Math philosophy" (a simple introduction course, with e.g. Gödel numbers, introduction to infinity, and things like that), and at the end of that course we were asked to write about something. I decided to ask friends about how they viewed numbers. To my surprise, everyone had pretty much their own unique way. I think I asked about 10 people. Some viewed numbers as colors ("the number 2 is of course blue" or something along that line), some viewed the numbers as on a traditional line, one guy thought of the numbers as being in a circle and you took one out as you wanted to use it and then had to put it back. Not everyone included the number zero (or negative numbers) in their explanation. My self, I see the natural numbers on a line, but the line has "angles" at the numbers 10 and 20. Perhaps this is because in my native language, the spoken words for 10..19 are not constructed in the same simple manner as 30..39, 40..49, and so on.
It also contains an error: Peano defined 2 as { {}, {{}} } = {0,1}. 3 is 2 U {2} = { 2, 1, 0 }. Larger numbers are defined inductively as (n+1) := n U {n}.
You can tell it was supposed to be the Peano construction (and not something else) because the GP defined zero as the empty set and 2 as {0,1}. The error was to also define 2 as {{{}}}, which is clearly not equivalent to {0,1} (since the former set has cardinality 1 and the latter has cardinality 2).
This is an incredibly common mistake even for math undergrads and good evidence that set theory really isn't very intuitive. There's a reason New Math failed.
Well, numbers are abstract. I'm not sure how a number line representation, which can take real shape would be an intuitive extension of an artificial concept. It isn't. Actually, it's the other way around, I would think. The number lines help us understand numbers and it's numbers that aren't intuitive.
I'm not sure if they've fixed it yet, but the defaults for line charts in MS Excel were insanely set to have equal spacing between data points on one axis no matter what values they have.
Thus you could have an axis that looked like:
1 4 7 8 14 35
IMHO that sort of defeats the purpose of a line graph. I can userstand linear or log scales but a random changing scale is pointless.