Skip to main content

Maths 1001 [Mathematics 1001] – Richard Elwes ***

Like its sister title Science 1001, this book takes on an enormous task: telling us ‘everything we need to know about mathematics in 1001 bite-sized explanations’.
It’s a handsome, if rather heavy book, somewhere between a typical hardback and a small coffee table book in size (though with floppy covers). Inside, it’s divided into 10 main sections – from the obvious ones like geometry and algebra, through to the exotics from statistics to game theory. Each section is split into topics – so in geometry you might get ‘Euclidian geometry’ and within each topic there may be around 12 entries.
In a sense, then, this is a mini-encyclopaedia of maths, though arranged by subject, rather than alphabetically. I had mixed feelings about the science entry in the series and those feelings are more extravagantly mixed than ever here. There is no doubt whatsoever that this is a useful book. A good marker of this is that, unlike many of the books that come into the review pile, I intend to keep this one. I think I will come back to it time and again to brush up on what some specific aspect of maths is. (As it is, really, a reference book, it would have been more helpful if the topics were alphabetic, but hey, what do you expect from a mathematician?)
However, as a popular science book to read from cover it has a number of deep flaws. Firstly it’s much too broken up into tiny segments. There is a bit of a flow, brought in by the way the topics are organized, but it’s very weak, and certainly doesn’t make for casual reading matter.
Secondly, far too much of the book is definitions. Time after time, a topic consists of defining what a mathematical term means. I feel a bit like Richard Feynman, who was told in a biology class, when explaining what the various bits of a cat were called, that everyone would be expected to memorise these. He said something to the effect of ‘no wonder this course takes so long’ – he didn’t see why people need to keep all those definitions in memory, and I rather feel the same about maths.
Then there’s the difficulty that the structure has in terms of dealing with some of the essentials of maths. Time after time, the author refers to the number e, without telling us what it is until over 200 pages after it is first mentioned. The assumption for a reader who hasn’t come across it might be that e is just a placeholder, the way j is used elsewhere – although many definitions here aren’t necessary, explaining what something like e is, and why it’s important, is pretty crucial.
As someone with a physics background, I particularly struggle to understand why there’s a whole section in here called ‘mathematical physics.’ No, it’s just physics. Newton’s laws don’t belong in a book on maths – there’s much too much to get your head around already without straying into a different subject.
And to top it all, I think the approach taken is often wrong. Popular science/maths, as opposed to textbooks, adds in explanation and context, not just the theory. By being so strong on definitions, there doesn’t seem to be room for this here. We find very little out about all the fascinating people involved. But even if you decide the format doesn’t allow for context and history, there is still far too little explanation. Two example out of literally hundreds: we are told ‘Up until the early 20th century, 1 was classed as prime, but no longer.’ Why? There are good reasons for this, but it is totally counter-intuitive. The number 1 seems like a prime. After all, it is only divisible by 1 and itself. We need explanation, not statement from authority. Another example is the topic on Bayes’ theorem. This is fascinating in its application, but the explanation is almost unreadable, being mostly equations, and there is nothing about its application in that section (a later one does make use of it, but doesn’t mention it is doing so). Highly frustrating.
Overall then, this is a very useful book if you dip into maths and need a quick reminder of what various things mean. It really is a great resource as a reference book. But it just doesn’t work as popular maths.

Paperback:  
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

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more