Book Review by John Derbyshire |
||||
|
|
|||
| Soft
Pop Math The Art of the Infinite: the
Pleasures of Mathematics Mathematicians are
uncomfortably aware that theirs is a “cold” subject.
Though full of wonders and delights, it has little appeal to the
tender side of human nature, little connection with the clayey appetites and
longings of our everyday lives. There
is a story about the great German mathematician David Hilbert.
Noticing that one of his students had been absent from class for some
days, Hilbert inquired the reason. He
was told that the absentee had abandoned his studies in order to become a
poet. Hilbert:
“I can’t say I’m surprised.
I never thought he had enough imagination to be a mathematician.”
We laugh, but without much conviction.
No doubt poetry and mathematics both require great resources of
imagination, but we can’t help thinking that these are different kinds
of imagination: the one delving
inward to the stuff we are made of, the other flying out, away from human
things, to an aery realm of frigid abstraction. The author of a pop-math book
has to take some consistent attitude towards this unhappy fact.
The school of thought which I favor, and which I suppose could be
called the “hard” approach to the popularization of math, mainly just
ignores the issue. We present
the reader with the truths of mathematics as they are, in the plainest
language we can muster, link them to the human world as best we can with
references to the lives or historical backgrounds of the mathematicians
concerned, and season the mix with occasional snippets of personal anecdote
or opinion. Our model is the
1940 pop-math classic Mathematics and the Imagination, by Edward
Kasner and James Newman. (This
was, incidentally, the book that gave our language the word “googol,”
which the authors claimed to have got from working with a New York
kindergarten class. A googol is
ten thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion
trillion.) Robert Kaplan follows a
different tack. He seeks to
humanize math for the general reader by cramming into his text as much of
the Humanities as it will bear. Kaplan
first hoist this banner three years ago with The Nothing That Is,
“a natural history of zero,” whose very title, as if in defiance of
Hilbert, is taken from a poem by Wallace Stevens, and in which, opening it
at random (honestly), I light on a sentence beginning:
“Shall we scribble across our canvas, as da Vinci did again and
again in old age, ‘Di mi se maifu fatta alcuna cosa...’?”
Let’s not, I murmur; let’s just cut to the mathematical chase,
could we, please? I don’t mean to be unkind.
These things are matters of taste, and The Nothing That Is is
actually a useful and informative book.
It enjoyed very good sales, too; so whatever I may think of the
soft-pop style of math exposition, there is obviously a healthy market for
it. Here Robert Kaplan, this
time in collaboration with his wife Ellen, has cast his net much wider,
seeking to explain nine large mathematical topics to a general readership.
The style is, if anything, even more strenuously multidisciplinary
than before. By page ten of The Art of the Infinite I had logged
references to Blake, Baudelaire, Robert Louis Stevenson, A.E. Housman,
Shakespeare, Proust, Tom Paine, Michelangelo, Sir Francis Bacon and
Heraclitus, and had struck up a nodding acquaintance with Mixtecs, Sanskrit
love lyrics, Australian aborigines, and “the Oksapmin of Papua New
Guinea,” whoever they may be. There
is no arguing with success, I suppose; but I could not help thinking that
the author might have benefited from the attentions of Daniel Webster.
Invited to edit William Henry Harrison’s inaugural address, Webster
found it so overloaded with classical allusions he later boasted that in the
course of his editing he had killed “seventeen Roman proconsuls as dead as
smelts, every one of them.” The nine topics presented
here, one per chapter, are as follows:
numbers; “foundations” (that is, the attempt to find fundamental
axioms from which math can be deduced); the distribution of primes; series;
triangles; fields; complex numbers; projective geometry; and transfinite
arithmetic. The authors attempt
to link these topics using the concept of infinity, though this concept is
obviously nearer the surface in some chapters than others.
After every second or third chapter comes a one-page “interlude,”
adding nothing much in the way of information, but bringing our attention
back to the notion of the infinite, while testing to the limit my tolerance
for lyricism in math texts. Sample
sentence: “The infinite
disguised as the indefinite is our onlie begetter.”
(And I note that in the first of those interludes the authors recycle
that da Vinci quote from The Nothing That Is.) If you can just put Baudelaire
and Leonardo da Vinci out of your mind, the math content of the book is
really very good. I was glad to
be reminded of the endless fascination contained in a triangle, for example.
The nine-point circle and the Euler line are great but little-known
wonders. It is a shame the
authors had not enough space to go into Simson lines, Morley triangles,
Malfatti circles or perimeter bisectors. They have got me thinking that there is a good pop-math book
waiting to be written just about the humble triangle. Hmmm... Projective
geometry, too, which was taught to high school honors classes in my own
time, but which is now unjustly neglected, offers many beautiful results to
the casual enquirer, and I commend the Kaplans for giving over a chapter to
this unfashionable topic. I
only wish they had dug up the connection between Pappus’s Theorem and the
traditional forms of Chinese poetry, which someone once explained to me, but
the details of which I have since forgotten. The pons
asinorum for lay readers is of course the complex numbers, which even
willing and well-prepared people often just cannot “get.”
Here I am not sure the Kaplans have found the right way to present
this challenging topic. They come at it via the so-called “fundamental theorem of
algebra,” and arithmetic in the Argand diagram, then proceed rather
laboriously to de Moivre’s formula. I
believe a more strictly numerical approach would be better here; though
since nothing works reliably, I suppose anything is worth trying. Gauss is supposed to have said that if it is not immediately
obvious to you on being told that
|
||||