updated whole doc and chapter 3

ch3.tex

@@ -388,12 +388,15 @@ The audio portion of all interviews was collected by electronic recorder and sub
  Excerpts of student transcripts were selected on the basis of being related to this question. A dimension of variation emerged from the data, such that the excerpts seemed readily organized along this dimension.
 
  \begin{table}
- \begin{tabular}{|p{6cm}|p{9cm}|}\hline
+ \begin{tabular}{|p{7cm}|p{8.5cm}|}\hline
  Category & Representative\\\hline\hline
 
 
   some students do not see any point to proof&
- They teach it to us because they were mathematicians and they like it.\\\hline
+ They teach it to us because they were mathematicians and they like it.\\
+
+
+ & we didn't see ok why do i really have to know the proof of the theorem to do that right? We didn't see the point, because no one taught us the point, so, that's a very important part that was missing.\\\hline
 
   some students think that it satisfies the curriculum goals, to be able to reproduce a previously taught proof, or follow a procedure to generate a proof, without being personally convinced&
  I was able to get a full score, but I don't understand why a proof by induction is convincing\\\hline
@@ -414,6 +417,8 @@ The audio portion of all interviews was collected by electronic recorder and sub
 
 
  & I know that recursion has the same structure as proof by mathematical induction. \ldots If I had an algorithm with a recursive data structure like a tree, and I had to prove something like termination about it, I'm not sure what approach I would use, it would depend.\\\hline
+
+ Some students see that they could employ proof to explore whether an algorithm can be expected to solve a problem in a given context that includes bounds upon resources that are available for consumption. & mostly design the algorithm first, we had some expectation of what that complexity results would be and then we try to find an approach to prove.
 \end{tabular}
  \end{table}