Skip to main content

Is Maths Real? - Eugenia Cheng ****

As soon as I saw this book, I knew I had to read it, if only because I wrote a book called Are Numbers Real?. The maths content of Eugenia Cheng's book is brilliant: where I was covering the history of mathematics, she focuses on what real, pure mathematicians do. (Funnily, I had called my book Is Maths Real?, but it was changed to the less accurate Are Numbers Real? so we wouldn't need different covers for the UK and US editions.)

The mathematical journey that Cheng takes us through is mesmerising. She starts by showing the power of abstraction - how by thinking about the nature of, say, something basic like addition or multiplication it is possible to extend the concept into something other than numbers. We also discover that, in some ways, the answer '2' is the least interesting response to 'What is 1 + 1?' - real maths isn't about the answer per se, but about digging into the processes, mechanisms and definitions to get a deeper understanding of the underlying logic.

From these simple beginnings, we are then helped to get over what has proved a stumbling block for many: the abstraction of what we'd call variables in computing. Using an x (say) instead of a specific number. I loved algebra at school, because it felt like code breaking, but I absolutely understand why this step is one that defeats many young people in their exposure to mathematics. We then get on to formulae and their relationship to other mathematical structures like geometric ones, and different visual representations. And this was all a delight.

I wouldn't entirely agree with Cheng on why so many people aren't interested in, or openly dislike, maths. I suspect a lot of it is about the very thing that makes it attractive to her - that abstraction. If we look at the rest of STEM, engineering and medicine give us practical things. Physics and chemistry tells us how the world works. Biology tells us about interesting animals and feeds into medicine. But most of maths is neither useful in ordinary life nor telling us anything about the world, because it exists within its own abstracted universe. This book makes clear how beautiful that can be - but it's a hard sell to teenagers.

Originally, I was going to give this book five stars, because the maths coverage is brilliant, but most of Cheng's books I've read have the flaw of containing (for me, at least) too much about her and her opinions. I want to read about maths, not Cheng's interest in food, her politics or her cultural inclinations. I do want to know about why mathematicians find maths interesting - but that’s a very different thing. This sort of personal content does appeal to some readers, just as, say, reading a magazine about celebrities is fascinating for some, but it puts me off.

Overall, then, do read it if you want to know more about the nature of pure mathematics and about being a mathematician - the mathematical content is great - but you may need to occasionally grit your teeth over the rest.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email 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