Skip to main content

Mapmatics - Paulina Rowińska ***

Popular mathematics can be hard to make engaging. Though some topics (such as infinity or zero) can be made interesting in isolation, usually it's best if it can be tied to something more concrete, and what Paulina Rowińska does here is to bring us the story of maps and the the maths behind them. Although Rowińska starts with Mercator and other early projections, it's not really a history of mapping - for example, there is no mention of Roger Bacon's description of using coordinates for mapping - instead the focus is the twin mathematical bases of mapping, geometry and trigonometry before moving onto other maths connections from fractals and operational research to Bayes' theorem.

We start with the nature of a curved world and the compromises that need to be made to translate a 3D surface onto a sheet of paper - compromises that are rarely stated and make a huge difference to the look of the map. This is mostly very engaging, except when it spends too long on geometry and trigonometry. Then there's a dive into fractals, based on Richardson's observations that country border lengths often vary as seen from either side of the border and Mandelbrot's formative 'How long is the coast of Britain?', straying into fractal dimensions. We then move onto the way maps need not be spatial representation - the classic example being the London tube map. Things get even more abstract as we move from maps to graphs (the node and connector type, not charts) and some well known mapping problems like travelling salesman and the four colour theorem. US gerrymandering gets its own chapter, as does Snow's cholera map and other such lifesaving mapping, before finally looking at what can just about be called mapping in terms of identifying the internal structure of the planet.

There are some great stories in here, but for me, unfortunately, once you've got over the genuinely interesting stuff about the difficulties of representing 3D geometry on a 2D map, a lot of the early mathematical basis is, frankly, a bit dull. It's no surprise that geometry and trigonometry figure large (the words do, after all, mean 'earth measuring' and 'triangle measuring'), but I always found them the most tedious aspect of maths. Mostly Rowińska avoids using too many mathematical formulations, but they do creep in quite regularly here. Later on we do get to more interesting mathematical areas such as topology and graph theory, but in these case the reverse happens: the maths isn't given enough depth to really get a grip of it - we might have been better with fewer topics and more detail once past the basics of projection.

In the first section, there's quite a lot about how the Mercator projection makes southern countries look smaller than they are in area, and northern states bigger, which some observers apparently take as a sort of colonial put down. This seems bizarre, as the point of the maps was initially navigation, but also it seems perfectly reasonable that early map makers would have seen things from their own country as a starting point. I presume map makers in the same period from southern countries would have seen things from their own viewpoint too, but this isn't explored.

It was particularly disappointed by the relative lack of illustrations, which I would have thought were essential for a book about maps. There are some, but, for example, when talking about the genuine limitations of Mercator and how other projections allow different types of information to be taken from the map, there are far too few illustrations to show us what those different projections would look like.

I liked what this book is trying to do, but I'm afraid I didn't particularly enjoy reading it.

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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

David Spiegelhalter Five Way interview

Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter FRS OBE is Emeritus Professor of Statistics in the Centre for Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge. He was previously Chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication and has presented the BBC4 documentaries Tails you Win: the Science of Chance, the award-winning Climate Change by Numbers. His bestselling book, The Art of Statistics , was published in March 2019. He was knighted in 2014 for services to medical statistics, was President of the Royal Statistical Society (2017-2018), and became a Non-Executive Director of the UK Statistics Authority in 2020. His latest book is The Art of Uncertainty . Why probability? because I have been fascinated by the idea of probability, and what it might be, for over 50 years. Why is the ‘P’ word missing from the title? That's a good question.  Partly so as not to make it sound like a technical book, but also because I did not want to give the impression that it was yet another book

Vector - Robyn Arianrhod ****

This is a remarkable book for the right audience (more on that in a moment), but one that's hard to classify. It's part history of science/maths, part popular maths and even has a smidgen of textbook about it, as it has more full-on mathematical content that a typical title for the general public usually has. What Robyn Arianrhod does in painstaking detail is to record the development of the concept of vectors, vector calculus and their big cousin tensors. These are mathematical tools that would become crucial for physics, not to mention more recently, for example, in the more exotic aspects of computing. Let's get the audience thing out of the way. Early on in the book we get a sentence beginning ‘You likely first learned integral calculus by…’ The assumption is very much that the reader already knows the basics of maths at least to A-level (level to start an undergraduate degree in a 'hard' science or maths) and has no problem with practical use of calculus. Altho

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on