The Maths Gene: Why Everyone Has It, But Most People Don't Use It (Paperback)

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.

Devlin starts with our sense for numbers. Not all numbers are the same: we instantly recognize one or two objects; beyond that number, we have to count them. But counting itself is not yet mathematics. So what is mathematics? Devlin fancies the answer that it is a science of patterns, and spends a whole chapter on what he really means by the extended concept of pattern. In order to describe abstract patterns, mathematics has developed a specialized language. So is it possible to learn anything about mathematics from what the linguists have already learned about the generalized structural grammar, underlying every known language? How did the full language - with grammar - evolve at all from the "momma hungry" protolanguage? And why?

The above arguments pose a grandiose ouverture for Devlin's thesis, which we are finally ready for in the second-but-last chapter: in order to be able to plan and predict, human ancestors have some 300.000 years ago developed what Devlin calls "off-line" thinking. With off-line thinking came grammar and language. Language is, and always was, used predominantly to build the "team spirit" among humans, or, with other words, for gossip. Mathematicians can avoid one unnecessary level of abstractions if they visualize the entities they are working with. So for them, doing mathematics is like gossiping. Well, sort of.

And that is it. The book is actually quite a pleasant read, with lots of interesting stuff. On the other hands, Devlin drags us on and around general linguistics and the evolution of speech and God knows what else before getting to the promised topic. The final thesis comes then rather unculminating. On the plus side, Devlin is fair at citing books and articles he had learned from. I wish I could say the same about some other popular science authors.