| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Jyao6ex8bj","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ28Ӻ","startOffset":277,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ28Ӻ","endOffset":793°Ӻ,"quote":"Even on the simplest level, for instance of 2+2=4, the symbol ‘2’ is meaningless for someone who has not abstracted the concept of ‘one’ from experiential items such as fingers, chocolates, or poker chips, and has then learned that sequences of these items can lead to the abstraction of compound units that are symbolized by ‘2’, ‘3’, ‘4’, etc. All other mathematical symbols similarly can be understood only by a thinker who knows and is able to execute the designated mental operations (cf. Steffe et al., 1983).","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321070364888847511052":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"WissenschaftlicheReferenz2","data_creacio":1580152451686°
|
