Skip to main content

David Acheson - Five Way Interview

David Acheson is Emeritus Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford, and was the University's first winner of a National Teaching Fellowship in 2004. He was President of the Mathematical Association from 2010 to 2011, and now lectures widely on mathematics to young people and the general public. In 2013, Acheson was awarded an Honorary D.Sc. by the University of East Anglia for his outstanding work in the popularization of mathematics. His books include 1089 and All That (OUP, 2002), The Calculus Story, (OUP, 2017), and The Wonder Book of Geometry, (OUP, 2020). His latest is The Spirit of Mathematics.

Why maths?

There are so many possible answers to this, though I once tried to sum up mathematics at its best in just six words: wonderful theorems, beautiful proofs and great applications. 

Yet I’m inclined to give here a quite different answer, for the best mathematics, at any level, really lasts. While I am no philosopher, it seems to me that so many good things in life are here today and gone, if not  tomorrow, then in, say, 50 years’ time.  

And mathematics at its best just isn’t like that.

Why this book?

About 20 years ago I set out to write an ambitious book for the general public on the three great pillars of mathematics, namely geometry, algebra and calculus. The idea was to go one step further than traditional ‘popular maths’ books, by helping the reader to actually do some mathematics, as well as be inspired by it. And as the years went by, the book got steadily bigger and bigger, and eventually split into three.

The first to be actually finished was The Calculus Story, in 2017, followed three years later by The Wonder Book of Geometry. In a sense, then, the new book, with its slant towards algebra, completes a trilogy. 

Yet, even as I was writing it, I could feel the book gradually turning into something rather different, and that it was really going to be about mathematics at its best using only simple materials. And that is why, in the end, it narrowly missed out on some dubious title like ‘Fun with Algebra’, and became instead The Spirit of Mathematics.

Would we be better teaching what you might call ‘popular maths’ to school children, only adding in most of the detailed ‘how’ for those who are going to require it further at A-level/university?

I sometimes wonder if mathematics has almost become too successful for its own good. So many people want it – or at least need it – but they want or need different parts of it and for different purposes. This presents schools with a big problem, and I certainly wouldn’t claim to have the solution.

Another reason why I am hesitant about answering the question is that I have virtually no experience of actually teaching in a school. When I last ‘taught’ 6th-formers, for instance, I was on stage at the Piccadilly Theatre in London, in a big maths show, demonstrating the mathematics of vibrating strings with my electric guitar.

For what it’s worth, however, I do believe that schools would do best to help pupils develop a ‘big picture’ of mathematics, guided largely by its history, alongside the gradual acquisition of the most elementary mathematical skills. And I would suggest that they do this, too, almost from the very beginning, in primary school. 

This is because I have always believed that there is much to be said for the dictum: ‘if you have no idea where you’re going, don’t be too surprised if you never get there.’

What’s next?

I plan to write a book on dynamics, but, once again, aimed at the general public, and with a fairly strong historical slant, as with The Calculus Story.

What’s exciting you at the moment?

The book that I’m writing at present. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you anything about it, because I never talk about the book I’m actually working on.

This is not out of some absurd fear that my ideas might get stolen, but because of an almost pathological fear that those ideas might end up simply as ‘hot air’. For talking about writing a book is infinitely easier than actually doing it. 

In short, I’m with the humorist Peter de Vries, who once said, so memorably: ‘I love being a writer. What I can’t stand is the paperwork.’

Image by Geraint Lewis


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re

Deep Utopia - Nick Bostrom ***

This is one of the strangest sort-of popular science (or philosophy, or something or other) books I've ever read. If you can picture the impact of a cross between Douglas Hofstadter's  Gödel Escher Bach and Gaileo's Two New Sciences  (at least, its conversational structure), then thrown in a touch of David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest , and you can get a feel for what the experience of reading it is like - bewildering with the feeling that there is something deep that you can never quite extract from it. Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom is probably best known in popular science for his book Superintelligence in which he looked at the implications of having artificial intelligence (AI) that goes beyond human capabilities. In a sense, Deep Utopia is a sequel, picking out one aspect of this speculation: what life would be like for us if technology had solved all our existential problems, while (in the form of superintelligence) it had also taken away much of our appare