### Abstract

Original language | English |
---|---|

Pages (from-to) | 173-214 |

Number of pages | 42 |

Journal | Argumentation |

Volume | 33 |

Issue number | 2 |

DOIs | |

Publication status | Published - 4 Jan 2019 |

### Fingerprint

### Bibliographical note

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.### Keywords

- inference anchoring theory
- mathematical practice
- mathematical argument
- structured proof

### Cite this

*Argumentation*,

*33*(2), 173-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9474-x

}

*Argumentation*, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 173-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9474-x

**Argumentation theory for mathematical argument.** / Corneli, Joseph; Martin, Ursula; Murray-Rust, Dave ; Rino Nesin, Gabriela; Pease, Alison.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Argumentation theory for mathematical argument

AU - Corneli, Joseph

AU - Martin, Ursula

AU - Murray-Rust, Dave

AU - Rino Nesin, Gabriela

AU - Pease, Alison

N1 - This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

PY - 2019/1/4

Y1 - 2019/1/4

N2 - To adequately model mathematical arguments the analyst must be able to represent the mathematical objects under discussion and the relationships between them, as well as inferences drawn about these objects and relationships as the discourse unfolds. We introduce a framework with these properties, which has been used to analyse mathematical dialogues and expository texts. The framework can recover salient elements of discourse at, and within, the sentence level, as well as the way mathematical content connects to form larger argumentative structures. We show how the framework might be used to support computational reasoning, and argue that it provides a more natural way to examine the process of proving theorems than do Lamport’s structured proofs.

AB - To adequately model mathematical arguments the analyst must be able to represent the mathematical objects under discussion and the relationships between them, as well as inferences drawn about these objects and relationships as the discourse unfolds. We introduce a framework with these properties, which has been used to analyse mathematical dialogues and expository texts. The framework can recover salient elements of discourse at, and within, the sentence level, as well as the way mathematical content connects to form larger argumentative structures. We show how the framework might be used to support computational reasoning, and argue that it provides a more natural way to examine the process of proving theorems than do Lamport’s structured proofs.

KW - inference anchoring theory

KW - mathematical practice

KW - mathematical argument

KW - structured proof

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059564929&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10503-018-9474-x

DO - 10.1007/s10503-018-9474-x

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 173

EP - 214

JO - Argumentation

T2 - Argumentation

JF - Argumentation

SN - 0920-427X

IS - 2

ER -