August Book of the Month: At Home in the Universe, & The Calculus Diaries

[David]

It's that time again! Time to start nominations for the August "Book of the Month". If you have a good idea for a book, please share it! (Make sure to press the "add book" option, so a link to the book will make it easier for everybody to read up about it.)

Nominations will be open until June 26.

[Betsy, co-mod]

I don't want to be piggy, but I'd like to nominate three books: The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values and The Calculus Diaries: How Math Can Help You Lose Weight, Win in Vegas, and Survive a Zombie Apocalypse, both of which garnered a number of votes in previous polls, and how about At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity?

[Kirsten]

I'd like to nominate Strange New Worlds: The Search for Alien Planets and Life beyond Our Solar System.

[Katy]

I'd like to second The Calculus Diaries: How Math Can Help You Lose Weight, Win in Vegas, and Survive a Zombie Apocalypse by Jennifer Ouellette

[[deleted user]]

I'd like to suggest The Theory That Would Not Die: How Bayes' Rule Cracked the Enigma Code, Hunted Down Russian Submarines, and Emerged Triumphant from Two Centuries of Controversy and The Universe in a Mirror

[John]

How about "Neutrino" by Frank CloseNeutrino
or "48 Hours to Chaos" by Yours Truly48 Hours to Chaos: An Engineer Looks at Life and How the World Really Works

[David]

Seven books have been nominated for the August book. If you are interested in reading one of these books, please vote in our poll before June 30.

This is a really tough choice for me--I would like to read several of these books!

[Jimmy]

Let Them Eat Shrimp by Kennedy Warne

[David]

We have a tie! So, the winners are:
At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity
and
The Calculus Diaries: How Math Can Help You Lose Weight, Win in Vegas, and Survive a Zombie Apocalypse
We can have fun discussing both of these books. So take your pick--read either one, or both!

[Deana]

Just started reading The Calculus Diaries today - read the prologue and I think I am going to like this lady! I completely understand her thoughts about calculus. Luckily I had an amazing teacher who helped me see the light :)

I think I'm just going to do a chapter a day for the next 9 days. Can't wait to see what others think!

[Olivierco]

I wrote a brief review of The Calculus Diaries.

[Deana]

It's too bad you didn't enjoy it Olivierco. I haven't decided yet. I liked the tone of the prologue, and the first chapter was nicely done even though I knew most of that history before. I didn't like the second chapter, though -- it seemed to jump around all over the place and I think she didn't give enough explanation for those who haven't had calculus before, but too much information for anyone who has taken a class.

[Olivierco]

Deana wrote: "I think she didn't give enough explanation for those who haven't had calculus before, but too much information for anyone who has taken a class. "
I agree. It seems that she didn't want to choose her audience.

[Betsy, co-mod]

I had high hopes for The Calculus Diaries, but was disappointed.

Here is my review.

[David]

I just finished reading At Home in the Universe. I enjoyed it very much, though it is not an "easy read". The book investigates lattice networks, and shows how simulations shed light on the origin of life, and on biological and technological evolution. Very thought provoking! The title of the book comes from the idea that the origin of life was not a highly improbable event; it was almost inevitable. Hence, we are really "At Home in the Universe". Here is my review.

[Olivierco]

The book would have gained much clarity to be written in a classical scientific literature style. It should have been then an easy read as the concepts and maths involved in At Home with the Universe aren't not too complex.

The ideas are interesting but some shortcuts didn't convince me, especially when a whole theory is supposed to be proved just because a mathematical model derived from it seems to be in adequation with it on a peculiar point.
For instance, p 109:
"Thus our prediction: a human with 100,000 genes should have about 317 cell types. And in fact, the number of known human cell types is 256. If our theory is right, we should be able to predict the scaling relation between the number of genes and the number of cell types. The latter should increase as the square root function of the former."
Then he presents a not so convincing graph (with only ten living species) which should prove that the whole model is right.

I would draw a parallel with the representation of our solar system:
When Copernic published his De Revolutionibus , it was clearly an improvement on the geocentric model, but even if his model gave clearly good and verified results (such as the fact that Venus presents phases), these results don't prove that the whole model is exact.

So even if the graph were more convincing, it wouldn't in any way prove the validity of the whole theory.

[David]

Olivierco wrote: "... The ideas are interesting but some shortcuts didn't convince me, especially when a whole theory is supposed to be proved just because a mathematical model derived from it seems to be in adequation with it on a peculiar point...."

I agree, Olivierco; the evidence for the theory is rather circumstantial. Still, the book is packed with some very intriguing, new ideas.

I just read another book on this subject, The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma. It contains a somewhat different theory about how variations arise in the genotype and the phenotype. But to tell the truth, there was much I didn't understand. At least, in the book "At Home in the Universe", I understood it all.

[Olivierco]

David wrote: "I just read another book on this subject, The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma. It contains a somewhat different theory about how variations arise in the genotype and the phenotype. "

Thanks for the recommendation!

[Eric]

Ok, I have 2 questions regarding the illustration on page 51 of the book (the first illustration in chapter 2.) The y axis is labeled position in miles, but the X axis has no lable. Is that axis supposed to be time in minutes, or am I missing something? Second question is about the equation on that illustration. The written explanation seems to me like the equation should read "S=f-d/e-c", but the equation in the picture says "S=f-d/g-c." Am I missing something here? Calculus has always been a mystery to me, so I'm really trying to understand this book, but chapter two is getting a little deep. (I loved chapter 1). Thanks!

[Olivierco]

The X axis is expressing time as you can see p(t) written along the Y axis .
It should be indeed S=f-d/e-c instead of S=f-d/g-c.

[Eric]

Thanks for the clarification.

[David]

Is anybody else reading either of our books, At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity or The Calculus Diaries: How Math Can Help You Lose Weight, Win in Vegas, and Survive a Zombie Apocalypse? What do you think of it?

[Katy]

I've started The Calculus Diaries: How Math Can Help You Lose Weight, Win in Vegas, and Survive a Zombie Apocalypse by I'm not real impressed so far. I guess I'm not sure for what audience the book is written. It feels like I am reading a calculus student's paper where they are trying to show the me what they have learned in the class. It is a bit over the head I think for my friends that don't have a good background in mathematics, and for those of us who have a background there is nothing new or even interesting in the book so far.

[Betsy, co-mod]

I'm still working on At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. About 25% done. Finding it fascinating, but a little heavy going.

[Deana]

Kathy wrote: "It is a bit over the head I think for my friends that don't have a good background in mathematics, and for those of us who have a background there is nothing new or even interesting in the book so far."

That's the same feeling I got from it, Kathy. I am a good chunk of the way through it. While there are some interesting snippets, most of it sort of jumps around from topic to topic within a chapter and kind of distracts me. And it's a bit basic for me -- the few times it -almost- gets some good application for calculus that I wouldn't have thought of, she just says "and since there is a change you could use a derivative to figure it out". Derivative of what? How do I figure out the original function to begin with? And if I hadn't taken a calculus class before, "How do we even take a derivative?! I know you said slope of a tangent line but how in the world am I supposed to find it?!"

I was really hoping this would be a book to give my mom, who never took calculus but expressed some interest when I was doing my homework. But I don't think it will work. I get the feeling she'll be left with more questions than she went in with.

I wish I had time to read the other book, but this month and next month will be crazy (in the middle of writing my dissertation and then moving across the country).

[Sofie]

I've been reading At Home in the Universe, I've got about three more chapters to go.

Some of it's very interesting, but I'm not convinced. There is no solid evidence, and he hasn't explained how it applies to everything from chemical reactions to the economy. He has a lot of calculations and stuff, but I don't know enough about these things to tell how convincing they are. I can understand most of them, but I have no way of knowing if they are true or have flaws or if they are complete nonsense.

He's searching for the one law that explains everything. Like the Space Hopper said in Flatterland, the search for that law is like search for the one true god. It seems to me that's what this book is about, and he's making no attempt to disguise it. He's even talking about it in religious terms. That just automatically makes me dubious.

[Betsy, co-mod]

I've given up on At Home in the Universe. At least temporarily. I just kept getting bogged down in explanations I couldn't follow. Perhaps some other time I'll have better luck.