Skip to main content

Math Without Numbers - Milo Beckman *****

In some ways, this is the best book about pure mathematics for the general reader that I've ever seen.  At first sight, Milo Beckman's assertion that 'the only numbers in this book are the page numbers' seems like one of those testing limits some authors place on themselves, such as Roberto Trotter's interesting attempt to explain cosmology using only the 1,000 most common words in the English language, The Edge of the Sky. But in practice, Beckman's conceit is truly liberating. Dropping numbers enables him to present maths (I can't help but wince a bit at the 'math' in the title) in a far more comprehensible way. Counting and geometry may have been the historical origin of mathematics, but it has moved on.

The book is divided into three primary sections - topology, analysis and algebra, plus a rather earnest dialogue on foundations of mathematics exploring the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and a closing section on modelling (including automata and 'science'). What this approach enables Beckman to do brilliantly is to move the image of mathematics away from school maths and onto what professional mathematicians spend their time on. What's more, and perhaps more impressively for a reader who has only ever been interested in applications, it gives the best appreciation I've seen of what the point of pure mathematics is - why some find it so delightful and interesting.

Along the way in those summary headings we come across shapes, manifolds, dimensions, infinity, maps, abstraction, structures and inference. We do eventually meet, for example, sets - though they come surprisingly late when taking a conventional view. Of course not everything can be covered in detail. Groups for example, crop up with brief coverage of both symmetry groups and wallpaper groups - but we are never told what a group is. Of course, most topics have to be handled distinctly briefly. This isn't a long book (I'd say it's just the right length to be enjoyable without being either trivial or getting bogged down), but Beckman fits a lot in.

I do have a couple of small issues. As mentioned, we're told from the start the only numbers in the book are the page numbers. This isn't strictly true - numbers as words crop up reasonably regularly. And though it does provide the freedom I mentioned, in one case - Cantor's diagonal argument for the infinity of the continuum - I found the non-numeric explanation far harder to get your head around than the traditional approach using numbers. It was also, perhaps, a little unfair to include (presumably as a diversion - they aren't given any context) a pair of logic puzzles without providing the solutions: one was straightforward, but the other had some issues. In terms of content, things went ever so slightly astray when Beckman strayed into science, telling us that Newton's gravitational relationship depended on the weights of the two bodies.

No book is perfect, though. The fact remains that Math Without Numbers is a brilliant introduction to pure mathematics and a delight from end to end.

Hardback:

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

Comments

  1. In your reiview Re: the hard-level quizz question you struggled with it three doors all identical that you suggest is not solvable I struggled with it as well for days as well and have a Master is Elec Eng hence why I stumbled across your post. My son solved it in in no time. Its how you read into the question what 3 identical doors mean and he realised they weren't'identical (given a different individual is in front of each and they all know each other). It's amusing how we read the question can completely throuh us off. Be nicer if we used longer descriptions to get over these misunderstandings but it's never going happen . In a way a dream for these quizz writers.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin Five Way Interview

Rakhat-Bi Abdyssagin (born in 1999) is a distinguished composer, concert pianist, music theorist and researcher. Three of his piano CDs have been released in Germany. He started his undergraduate degree at the age of 13 in Kazakhstan, and having completed three musical doctorates in prominent Italian music institutions at the age of 20, he has mastered advanced composition techniques. In 2024 he completed a PhD in music at the University of St Andrews / Royal Conservatoire of Scotland (researching timbre-texture co-ordinate in avant- garde music), and was awarded The Silver Medal of The Worshipful Company of Musicians, London. He has held visiting affiliations at the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and UCL, and has been lecturing and giving talks internationally since the age of 13. His latest book is Quantum Mechanics and Avant Garde Music . What links quantum physics and avant-garde music? The entire book is devoted to this question. To put it briefly, there are many different link...

Should we question science?

I was surprised recently by something Simon Singh put on X about Sabine Hossenfelder. I have huge admiration for Simon, but I also have a lot of respect for Sabine. She has written two excellent books and has been helpful to me with a number of physics queries - she also had a really interesting blog, and has now become particularly successful with her science videos. This is where I'm afraid she lost me as audience, as I find video a very unsatisfactory medium to take in information - but I know it has mass appeal. This meant I was concerned by Simon's tweet (or whatever we are supposed to call posts on X) saying 'The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder: if you are a fan of SH... then this is worth watching.' He was referencing a video from 'Professor Dave Explains' - I'm not familiar with Professor Dave (aka Dave Farina, who apparently isn't a professor, which is perhaps a bit unfortunate for someone calling out fakes), but his videos are popular and he...

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on...