Skip to main content

Numbercrunch - Oliver Johnson ***

A classic curate's egg of a book. Some aspects of it are brilliant, but there is enough that isn't to make it frustrating. Wisely, Oliver Johnson decided to do a book on very practical aspects of maths - applications that are a wonderful counter to the old moan at school of 'but what use is it to me?' This is great, but two aspects are less positive. One is that this would be a sensible argument if we taught school students this stuff. Just as I think we should teach interesting physics, this is genuinely interesting maths that doesn't necessarily involve more work to learn the basics. But we don't. The second issue is that Johnson decided to do maths without formulae and equations.

This is a common enough practice in popular science, where you can often get away without the mathematics, but in popular maths it is a real stumbling block. When, for example, Johnson is telling us about Bayesian methods - really useful stuff - rather than presenting us a with a very straightforward formula we have to deal with hard-to-grasp wording like using 'the "top divided by bottom-minus-top" rule'. I admit I'm comfortable with mathematical symbols, but getting my head round this kind of presentation was far too like hard work.

Despite this, there's a lot of good material covered. I particularly enjoyed the section looking at gambling odds - I understand probabilities, but I've never been able to get my head round a presentation of these like '3 to 1 on', and Johnson makes this approach clear, pointing out some of its uses (though I still find it less transparent that a straightforward probability). Another example where I got something useful out of it is an exploration of where using logarithmic plots is more effective than straightforward presentation of the numbers. Johnson demonstrates this well, though I feel he is so enamoured with log presentation, that he didn't seem aware of examples such as Moore's law, where the data is almost always presented logarithmically and I think this hides away just how dramatic the growth has been.

We get some good material on the way we struggle with randomness (and its implications), the basics of information theory and the usefulness of understanding Markov chains, the effectiveness of estimation in some cases (and the dubious nature of over-precise numbers) and significantly more. In all this, a little relaxation of the urge to avoid any mathematical representation would have helped.

I did have a couple of other issues that were personal and others might not have found them a problem. Johnson worked mathematically on the COVID pandemic and in all his main topics this features heavily. I find this a particularly unhelpful example to explain the maths because it is so out of or ordinary experience (and feels like a dream world now). The whole point of the book is to illustrate 'what use is it to me?' - it certainly was useful to Johnson and his colleagues in the pandemic, but less so to the rest of us. Of course, we all experienced the pandemic, but not in a way that can be seen as relating to everyday life. Johnson also used a number of sporting examples, which I find off-putting in the extreme - but I appreciate that there are plenty of potential readers who would find them entertaining.

Overall it's a great idea for a book, the areas Johnson cover are fascinating, and he knows his stuff. The book is worth having. But it would have benefited from more awareness of what makes a piece of popular maths writing a good read.

Paperback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support our online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:
Review by Brian Clegg - See all reviews and Brian's online articles or subscribe free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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...

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...

When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows: Steven Pinker *****

In the past I've found Steven Pinker's books hypnotic - I drift along enjoying the words and feeling I'm getting something deep from it without anything much sinking in. This one was different - it was sometimes a little harder to get your head around the underlying concept, descending as it tends to into infinite regression, but overall I did feel I'd gained a lot.  Pinker's focus here is 'common knowledge' which is when not only do we both/all know something, but we know that the other(s) know as well and the implications this has for human interactions. One entertaining thing to emerge from this is the ability to get into infinite loops of the 'I know that you know that I know that...' variety. Although we aren't mentally equipped to deal with more than a handful of iterations, we are told that a simple but limited interaction like a text exchange strictly needs the full infinite set to be definitive. For example, if you and a friend are tryin...