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
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The AI Paradox - Virginia Dignum ****

This is a really important book in the way that Virginia Dignum highlights various ways we can misunderstand AI and its abilities using a series of paradoxes. However, I need to say up front that I'm giving it four stars for the ideas: unfortunately the writing is not great. It reads more like a government report than anything vaguely readable - it really should have co-authored with a professional writer to make it accessible. Even so, I'm recommending it: like some government reports it's significant enough to make it necessary to wade through the bureaucrat speak. Why paradoxes? Dignum identifies two ways we can think about paradoxes (oddly I wrote about paradoxes recently , but with three definitions): a logical paradox such as 'this statement is false', or a paradoxical truth such as 'less is more' - the second of which seems a better to fit to the use here.  We are then presented with eight paradoxes, each of which gives some insights into aspects of t...
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

Einstein's Fridge - Paul Sen ****

In Einstein's Fridge (interesting factoid: this is at least the third popular science book to be named after Einstein's not particularly exciting refrigerator), Paul Sen has taken on a scary challenge. As Jim Al-Khalili made clear in his excellent The World According to Physics , our physical understanding of reality rests on three pillars: relativity, quantum theory and thermodynamics. But there is no doubt that the third of these, the topic of Sen's book, is a hard sell. While it's true that these are the three pillars of physics, from the point of view of making interesting popular science, the first two might be considered pillars of gold and platinum, while the third is a pillar of salt. Relativity and quantum theory are very much of the twentieth century. They are exciting and sometimes downright weird and wonderful. Thermodynamics, by contrast, has a very Victorian feel and, well, is uninspiring. Luckily, though, thermodynamics is important enough, lying behind ...
Post a Comment
Read more