2.75
Quick overview of the history of math with mostly convenient explanatory text. I enjoyed the sections on Euclid’s proposals, trigonometry, number theory, and calculus. The best fragment of the book is over Euler’s divine formula; the fact that complex relationships graph periodically between spheres and sine functions is mystifying -according to the few bits I’ve gathered from physics, particles behave this way; then what is going on?!
I came to see that math emerged as a religion, and fairly it has stayed the same today. It does not say anywhere in the book, but it is so obvious; Egyptian numerals were a succession from the most simple to the most complex: one represented one line, 10 was a bent trace, 100 a curve, 1000 a stone, 10,000 a plant, 100,000 an animal, 1,000,000 a human, and 10,000,000 the sun, the most common god in ancient cultures. Hinduists thought maths were expressions from the gods. Greeks that they had divine properties. Today holds anchored in scientific fields: a pythagoro-platonic ontology: the world as built from tensions, proportions, mathematical relationships.. phenomena as an interplay of those and our ratios. It is a really interesting outlook, and so ancient, and so confluent in various cultures. They´ve all arrived at some level of metaphysical explanation to them.
What I did not like. First, I thought the review of ancient cultures was a bit long, then, at the last few chapters it revealed a long exposition of why, and why math principles got debunked in the last century; they delved into platonic dogma and ethnomathematics -favoritism of a cultural method of doing math- (as if it mattered, there´s a reason why Arabic numbers are common to the West). The debate turned philosophical really quickly and postmodern critiques started to add up. In general, I think there´s some truth to them, but are essentially based on not listening to the main greek restrictions for knowledge; this is what Plato and Aristotle were all about!
Of course, if you delve into the all-changing phenomena of the physical world, you will start getting all sorts of uncertainties; this was the main reason for the platonic division of the world: an abstract world of forms, ideas, relationships, and the world of senses which its moving state was the main description made by Heraclitus. If this critique is true, the argument of the uncertainty of statistics would not mean anything directly to pure math because the materials taken from the sensible phenomena would account for the variation. The formulas would stay the same, just as the Greeks have shown. I think this could also be said for chaos. One could work his way through to a specific point right... once followed all previous steps one could produce it... Does this means all the predicates were already in the premise... Idk... it is more complicated here I think. Also, the algebra part was fuzzy and unclear.
Well, all n all, it was a good read. Sorry, I would have rated it 3, but I´m not so fond of postmodernism.