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


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Mathematics with Love – Mary Stopes-Roe *****

Admittedly it’s early days (this review is written in January), but this, for me, is the surprise hit of the year so far! I approached this book with trepidation, but found it absolutely delightful. It is described on the cover as the “courtship correspondence of Barnes Wallis, inventor of the bouncing bomb”, and contains a series of letters between Wallis and his cousin and eventual wife Molly Bloxham, along with some useful annotation by their daughter, Mary. The courtship itself is not without difficulties, as Wallis was 18 years older than the 17-year-old Molly at the start of the correspondence, and her father, not surprisingly, wasn’t too pleased about the interest of such an elderly suitor, but that isn’t the only reason the letters are interesting – it’s also because of maths, and Wallis’s position in the UK as the engineering hero of the Second World War. (Incidentally, it seemed very strange to see letters addressed to “Barnes” – I had always assumed Barnes Wallis was a ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...
Post a Comment
Read more