Skip to main content

Infinite Powers - Stephen Strogatz ****

I missed this one when it came out, possibly because the cover looks somewhat amateurish. Stephen Strogatz starts by exploring the prehistory of calculus - arguably the most widely applied mathematical tool in physics and engineering. We tend to think of calculus starting with Newton and Leibniz, but there was a long prehistory stretching back to the Ancient Greeks. This involved using methods that might, for instance, mentally cut something up into smaller and smaller pieces, then rearranged those pieces in order to work out, for instance, the relationship between the area of a circle and its circumference. This background is delightfully introduced.

Strogatz takes us through some, though not all, of the intervening history before the real thing bursts on the scene, but oddly then gives up on the historical context, so we don't hear about Newton and Leibniz until we have absorbed a whole host of detail, including where necessary some equations, ranging from functions to the natural logarithm and its exponential function before we get on to the basics that lie behind differentiation.

Uncovering the fundamentals of the mathematics is the kind of thing Strogatz does brilliantly. He can really dive into what makes calculus tick. Things are less effective on the history front. We do eventually get both Newton and Leibniz's side of the story, but I found the way it was mixed up with mathematical detail made it difficult to absorb the message. Again we then lose the historical structure - no Bishop Berkeley and not much on the way that limits were introduced to fix the problem of infinitesimals (though this is touched on early on in the book). Partial differential equations get an introduction but with less detail, as does Fourier analysis. Along the way, Strogatz introduces a wide range of real world applications, and finally looks at future possibilities.

I had a couple of problems with the book. Strogatz sometimes gets carried away with floridity. For example, when talking about dividing a circle into quarters and arranging them in a line: ‘It’s certainly not a rectangle, so its area is not easy to guess. We seem to be going backward. But as in any drama, the hero needs to get into trouble before triumphing. The dramatic tension is building.’ He also commits the science writer's heresy of telling us 'During the Inquisition, the renegade monk Giordano Bruno was burned alive at the stake for suggesting that God, in His infinite power, created innumerable worlds.’ Not only was Bruno a friar, he was burned for conventional religious heresy, not his (often pseudo-) scientific views.

This was a book that couldn't decide what it was supposed to be. It started off as history of maths, but that petered out to be replaced by random historical snippets mixed in with an excellent exploration of what calculus is all about. I think it would be better to have either taken the historical approach throughout, fitting in the explanation of the maths, or to have based it purely around the maths with just passing references to the historical context. Yet despite that strange hybrid approach, there is so much to like in Strogatz's ability to bring the maths alive.

Paperback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here
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