Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Akses terbuka Jurnal SINTA 1

Causes of proof construction failure in proof by contradiction

Journal on Mathematics Education · Vol. 14 No. 3 (2023) · hlm. 415–448

DOI
10.22342/jme.v14i3.pp415-448
ISSN
2407-0610, 2087-8885
Terbit
2023-06-09
Penerbit
Indonesian Mathematical Society
Lisensi
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

Abstrak

Failure to deduce false suppositions in proof by contradiction is still considered “more difficult” than proving the conditional to in proof by contraposition. This study aims to identify the types of proof construction failures based on the action steps of proof by contradiction, then offer a framework of construction failure hypothesis specifically used in proof by contradiction. The research data were collected and analyzed from the work of students who have agreed to be research participants, a total of 83 students. The results of the analysis of student work successfully identified four types of failures, namely formulating suppositions, constructing and manipulating suppositions, identifying contradictions, and disproving suppositions. These four types of failures then became the material for the development of the hypothesis framework of a failure to construct proof by contradiction, which consists of 17 hypothesis nodes divided into three main hypotheses, namely: operational (action), affective (emotional), and foundational (logical reasoning). The failure hypothesis framework justifies that the sources of the failure of proof construction in proof by contradiction are understanding of the act of producing a proof by contradiction, emotionality towards the coherence of the construction steps, disproving suppositions, beliefs, use of appropriate definitions-theorems and axioms, and cognitive tension in proof by contradiction; and formal logic of the act of producing a proof by contradiction, as well as differences in the underlying logic with other acts.

Jaringan kolaborasi para penulis

34 penulis · 90 tautan kepenulisan bersama · 26 lintas organisasi

Arahkan kursor atau ketuk sebuah nama untuk menyorot rekan penulisnya. Klik dua kali untuk membuka halaman penulis.

  • State University of Malang
  • STKIP Pasundan
  • Panca Bhakti University
  • Padjadjaran University
  • State University of Semarang
  • Sriwijaya University
  • University of Mataram
  • Organisasi lain
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Organisasi berbeda
  • Organisasi sama
  • Afiliasi tidak diketahui
  • Garis lebih tebal = lebih banyak artikel bersama · lingkaran lebih besar = lebih banyak artikel
Tampilkan sebagai tabel
Rekan penulisOrganisasiArtikel bersama
Toto NusantaraState University of Malang2
Erry HidayantoState University of Malang2
Christi MatitaputtyState University of Malang2
Lathiful AnwarState University of Malang2
Nur Ainun JariyahAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Tita NurhayatiSTKIP Pasundan1
Agustina RetnoasihSTKIP Pasundan1
Lili HalimahSTKIP Pasundan1
Bambang HermantoState University of Semarang1
Farida RahmawatiState University of Semarang1
Yenny Aman SerahPanca Bhakti University1
Resmaya Agnesia Mutiara SiraitPanca Bhakti University1
Agustinus AstonoPanca Bhakti University1
Gautam Kumar JhaJawaharlal Nehru University1
Abd. QoharUniversitas Islam Negeri Raden Intan Lampung1
Elok Izzatul MardhiyahAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Abd. QoharState University of Malang1
Elok Izzatul MardhiyahState University of Malang1
Hendro PermadiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Rif'atul SyarifahAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Abdul QoharAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Hendro PermadiState University of Malang1
Rif'atul SyarifahState University of Malang1
HersantiAfiliasi tidak diketahui1
Mieke Rochimi SetiawatiPadjadjaran University1
Tualar SimarmataPadjadjaran University1
Betty Natalie FitriatinPadjadjaran University1
Tien TurmuktiniUniversitas Winaya Mukti1
Benyamin LakitanSriwijaya University1
Marieska VerawatySriwijaya University1

Afiliasi berasal dari OpenAlex; metadata OAI-PMH jurnal tidak memuatnya. Penulis tanpa ID OpenAlex dicocokkan berdasarkan nama, sehingga dua orang bisa tergabung atau satu orang bisa terpisah.

Data ini berasal dari Crossref (yang disetorkan penerbit), karena endpoint OAI-PMH milik jurnal tidak dapat di-harvest.

Sumber metadata: Crossref API (cadangan, berdasarkan ISSN) https://api.crossref.org/journals/2407-0610/works, pertama di-harvest 28 Okt 2026, terakhir terlihat 8 Nov 2026.
Metadata sebagai oai_dc, dikonversi dari Crossref
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/"><dc:title>Causes of proof construction failure in proof by contradiction</dc:title><dc:creator>Hamdani, Deni</dc:creator><dc:creator>Purwanto</dc:creator><dc:creator>Sukoriyanto</dc:creator><dc:creator>Anwar, Lathiful</dc:creator><dc:description>&lt;jats:p&gt;Failure to deduce false suppositions in proof by contradiction is still considered “more difficult” than proving the conditional to in proof by contraposition. This study aims to identify the types of proof construction failures based on the action steps of proof by contradiction, then offer a framework of construction failure hypothesis specifically used in proof by contradiction. The research data were collected and analyzed from the work of students who have agreed to be research participants, a total of 83 students. The results of the analysis of student work successfully identified four types of failures, namely formulating suppositions, constructing and manipulating suppositions, identifying contradictions, and disproving suppositions. These four types of failures then became the material for the development of the hypothesis framework of a failure to construct proof by contradiction, which consists of 17 hypothesis nodes divided into three main hypotheses, namely: operational (action), affective (emotional), and foundational (logical reasoning). The failure hypothesis framework justifies that the sources of the failure of proof construction in proof by contradiction are understanding of the act of producing a proof by contradiction, emotionality towards the coherence of the construction steps, disproving suppositions, beliefs, use of appropriate definitions-theorems and axioms, and cognitive tension in proof by contradiction; and formal logic of the act of producing a proof by contradiction, as well as differences in the underlying logic with other acts.&lt;/jats:p&gt;</dc:description><dc:publisher>Indonesian Mathematical Society</dc:publisher><dc:date>2023-06-09</dc:date><dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type><dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format><dc:identifier>https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v14i3.pp415-448</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>10.22342/jme.v14i3.pp415-448</dc:identifier><dc:source>Journal on Mathematics Education; Vol 14 No 3 (2023); 415-448</dc:source><dc:source>2407-0610</dc:source><dc:source>2087-8885</dc:source><dc:relation>http://jme.ejournal.unsri.ac.id/index.php/jme/article/download/308/77</dc:relation><dc:rights>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</dc:rights></oai_dc:dc>