Skip to main content

Love Triangle - Matt Parker ****

There's no doubt that Matt Parker can make practically anything interesting - this is one of the few books I've ever read where I genuinely enjoyed the introduction. But there was a real challenge here. In a review of a recent book about maps and mathematics I said 'I always found [geometry and trigonometry] the most tedious aspect of maths.' Take a look at the subtitle here: 'the life-changing magic of trigonometry'.

It's no surprise that the 'trig' word turns up - it literally means triangle measuring (trigon is an obsolete term for a triangle). But it inevitably raises a shudder for many. Parker does acknowledge this in his pure trigonometry section, suggesting it's primarily because it's a pain remembering what tan and cos and sin refer to, but pointing out convincingly how useful and powerful trigonometry is. I confess, however, it was still my least-favourite chapter in the book.

Thankfully there's a lot more, introduced with Parker's bubbly brand of humour. If you've ever seen him on stage, he writes as he performs - everything is handled in a light, energetic, slightly gawky way. Occasionally his word-play gets a touch irritating, but maybe that's just me. That doesn't get in the way of his ability to make maths more interesting. When, for instance, he's talking about the non-intuitive Heron's formula that gives the area of a triangle from the lengths of its sides he notes that it 'makes me irrationally angry', which somehow makes it more approachable.

The book goes into triangles in a huge range of applications and oddities, ranging from the balloon and pigs story featured on the cover to how to cut a sandwich into three pieces equal in area and with an equal amount of crust, or to the many engineering and architectural uses of triangles - we are taken into the constant tension between the architect who wants an outcome and the engineer having to make the outcome feasible... often using triangles. They aren't usually alone in such circumstances. We get meshes of triangles and 3D shapes incorporating triangles (and, to be fair, one or two other shapes). We get triangle-related art effects and Fourier transforms. It's triangle heaven.

For much of the time this is an extremely enjoyable read, but sometimes it does suffer from Parker's over-enthusiasm. There is a big difference between being interested in a subject and being obsessed with it. Readers are likely to fit in the first camp, while Parker is unashamedly living in the second. This produces that engaging enthusiasm, but it also means that at times Parker can spend too many words on a topic, leaving the reader thinking 'time to move on'. This is perhaps most obvious in the chapter on different (often weird) shaped solids, but comes up regularly. I didn't find this a big problem, but it keeps the book from perfection.

If you are interested in maths, and particularly if (like me) you are interested in maths but are no enthusiast for geometry and trig, be prepared for pleasant surprises: this is an excellent addition to your shelves.

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