- Jubilee offer: spend £10 or more on any product sold by Amazon.co.uk on or before June 6 and you can buy The Diamond Jubilee A Classical Celebration Album for just £2.50 Here's how (terms and conditions apply)
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
Amazon.co.uk Trade-In Store
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Plus, get an extra £5 Gift Certificate when you trade in books worth £10 or more before June 30, 2012. Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. |
Product details
|
Or so it seems to anyone who has felt very much on the outside of the subject. British mathematician Keith Devlin is certainly on the inside--and in The Maths Gene he has wonderful news for everyone: we can all join him there. For Devlin argues that we all possess the ability to cope with mathematics, if only we recognise what's required. While a number of recent books, notably Stanislas Dehaene's The Number Sense, have focused on numerical ability, the scope of Devlin's book is much larger. He examines the evidence that we all possess, if not literally a gene, then at least an inherent ability not just for arithmetic but for real mathematics: algebra, calculus and the rest. Devlin even puts forward a Darwinian explanation for the origin of this ability, based on the idea that being able to handle abstract ideas and relationships confers key evolutionary advantages. Mathematics merely involves a relatively high level of abstraction--but one we can all cope with, if we work at it: "Doing mathematics is very much like running a marathon", says Devlin. "It does not require any special talent, and 'finishing' is largely a matter of wanting to succeed". In its wealth of wonderful examples supporting the central argument, The Maths Gene bears comparison with Steve Pinker's The Language Instinct and its plain common sense about this most misunderstood of subjects is truly inspirational. Thoroughly recommended for anyone seeking to rid their intellectual cupboard of the skeleton of mathematical "incompetence". --Robert Matthews --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product)
|
No - the proof of an infinite number prime numbers does not hinge on the fact that the product of all prime numbers to some assumed largest prime, N+1, is a prime, but rather that it is either a prime, or a composite of primes that are ALL greater than the assumed largest prime P.
No - Bird's wings did NOT evolve from heat-radiating "fins", but their isomorphic nature to other species' forelimbs makes their origin crystal clear.
The book is littered with howlers such as a statement that gene replication is somehow responsible for the appearance of gender in human language syntax - no explanation or justification is given for this statement, and I doubt that a convincing one could be devised.
Nonetheless, the main thesis of the book makes sense, and is delivered convincingly, but the book could have benefited greatly from a critical review before it was publicised.
I'm generally impressed with the book, and although I am not necessarily convinced of the central thesis, I thought that it was a very well written and interesting book. It is also exciting to read. To anyone that has a degree in maths or has read a lot of books on maths, quite a lot of the material will be recognisable as typical things to put in an introductory book. I would recommend this book though to anyone that knows nothing about maths really, (and when I say maths I mean real maths; what makes up the actual mathematical body that humans have developed; not the little arithmetical toys or tiny subsets of maths given in a very specific form in school or college), as it will probably clear up many fallaceous thoughts that you might have regarding mathematics and what mathematicians do.
I remember that there was one theory in particular that I thought an more elgant answer would be more likely for. This was concerning the statistical indication that Chinese people develop better mathematical skills relative to age when young compared to English speaking students. It is supposed that this is because of the counting system in China being such that the equivalent of say 'eleven' in Chinese would be 'one one' and 'fifty seven' would be 'five seven'. This could make arithmetic a little easier I suppose, but I thought it more obvious that the reason Chinese students are better at maths than English speaking students for example, is that the Chinese language is a lot more complex to learn and the grammar is more difficult than English grammar, and hence the Chinese children will have developed the kind of quickness as these sort of thinking abilities needed for arithmetic a lot more fully than English speaking students, (such as American or English).
Anyway, I would recommend this book for mathematicians if they are interested in evolution of language and of mathematics, and I would recommend it as a generally interesting non-fiction read. Its nice to hear fairly fresh theories such as the thesis of this book being proposed.
|