Skip to main content

Closing the Gap - Vicky Neale ***

Every now and then a working scientist will write a superb popular science book, but it's significantly rarer that mathematicians stray beyond recreational maths without becoming impenetrable, so I was cheering as I read the first few chapters of Vicky Neale's Closing the Gap about the attempt to prove the 'twin primes conjecture' that infinitely many pairs of prime numbers just two apart.

I'd say those first few chapters are far and above the best example I've seen of a mathematician getting across the essence of pure maths and why it appeals to them. Unfortunately, though, from then on the book gets bogged down in the problem that almost always arises, that what delights and fascinates mathematicians tends to raise a big 'So what?' in the outside world.

Neale interlaces attempts getting closer and closer to the conjecture, working down from a proof of primes several millions apart to under 600, adding in other, related mathematical work, for example on building numbers from squares and combinations of primes, but increasingly it's a frustrating read, partially due to necessary over-simplification. Time and again we're told about something, but effectively that it's too complicated for us to understand (or we'll come back to it in a later chapter), and this doesn't help make the subject approachable. I understand that a particular mathematical technique may be too complicated to grasp, but if so, I'm not sure there's any point telling us about it.

Part of the trouble is, most of us can only really get excited about maths if it has an application - and very little of what's described here does as yet. I'm not saying that pure mathematics is a waste of time. Not at all. Like all pure research, you never know when it will prove valuable. Obscure sounding maths such as symmetry groups, imaginary numbers and n-dimensional space have all proved extremely valuable to physics. It's just that while the topic remain abstract, it can be difficult to work up much enthusiasm for it.

At the beginning of the book, Neale draws a parallel with rock climbing, and that we are to the mathematicians scaling the heights like someone enjoying a stroll below and admiring their skill. And, in a way, this analogy works too well. We can certainly be impressed by that ability - but a lot of us also see rock climbing as a waste of time and consider it as interesting if you aren't actually doing it as watching paint dry.

It's not impossible to make obscure mathematics interesting - Simon Singh proved this with Fermat's Last Theorem. But that was achieved with writing skill by spending most of the book away from the obscure aspects. I'm beginning to suspect that making high level mathematics approachable is even more difficult than doing that maths in the first place.


Hardback:  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you


Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

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...

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 ...

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 ...