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

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

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more