Skip to main content

The Raven's Hat - Jonas Peters and Nicolai Meinshausen ***

This book promises something intriguing - 'a series of engaging games that seem unsolvable - but that can be solved when they are translated into mathematical terms.' Such a title succeeds or fails on two key aspects of that promise - are the games engaging and are the mathematical solutions comprehensible to the general reader.

Before getting into the detail, I must say that I loved the illustrations by Malte Meinshausen, featuring characters that are an endearing cross between a raven and the old 'Spy vs Spy' illustrations in Mad magazine. As will become clear, I do have some difficulty with the content as far as the general reader is concerned, though some will definitely find it interesting.

Are the games engaging? I'd say mostly not. The first, which features hat colour guessing, is the most so, as it's just about imaginable playing it as a real game. Similarly, there's a magic trick involving a pack of cards that feels as if it could just about be usable as a genuine card trick (even though it's a card trick where the magician is said to only have 84% chance of success, which seems a bit low to be truly successful.) Those apart, though, the game formats are so convoluted that they become abstractions rather anything that's imaginable as a game you would play.

How about the solutions? They are quite difficult to get your head around and aren't broken down well enough for the non-mathematician to really grasp them. They also generally seem too complex for anyone but a maths wizard to remember how to make use of in reality. And it can also be difficult to pick up on exactly what is meant. 

So, for example, in the hat colour game, players are given red or blue hats without seeing their own hats. They can't talk to each other, but after a few seconds, when asked, they have to hold up a sign with the answer to 'What colour is your hat?' of 'Red', 'Blue' or '?'. We are then asked the best strategy, which seems to involve the players deciding together what they should do - but we were told they can't talk to each other. When it comes to solutions of this game, we are told 'the key to success will be to "collect" the wrong answers in single instances of the game' as this will bundle 'the false guesses into the same game and spread out the correct guesses over as many games as possible.' But there was no suggestion up front the game was to be played multiple times - and the concept of bundling up false guesses feels wrong, so needs more explanation.

Similarly, for the card trick, the mechanism requires the pre-ordered pack to be riffle shuffled three times. I have never seen a real card trick, where the audience member is told a mechanism for shuffling - they are just asked to shuffle the cards (personally I would alternate overhand shuffles and riffle shuffles). As soon as the mechanism is forced on them, it immediately becomes suspect.

That all sounds a touch negative - but I would stress again that those who are deeply into the theory and mathematics of games will no doubt find this book extremely intriguing. It's just that there's an opportunity missed for it to reach a wider audience.

Paperback:

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more