Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.35 AVERAGE
3.35 AVERAGE
At parts fascinating, at parts dry, the book did, however, appeal to my English/Math self, especially as Devlin argues that our language gene and math gene are essentially the same and that the former enables us to think mathematically as well. This book is not for the faint-hearted. You'll need to love both language and math to appreciate the author's argument.
Our math lecturer recommended this book and I decided to check it out. I didn't expect to learn so much about linguistics on the go.
Some interesting points I remember/learnt:
- babies can count (i.e. they have a number sense) but not beyond 3
- syntax is ingrained in all of our brains, language is just a flavour you put on top
- math is easier to understand if you frame it in language and stories instead of mathematical expressions since many people have an aversion towards math
- everybody can do math. if you can talk, you can also do math. the cognitive facilities needed for both are virtually the same.
- the reason why the point above might not seem to be true is because we have much more practice with language than we do with maths and numbers
Some interesting points I remember/learnt:
- babies can count (i.e. they have a number sense) but not beyond 3
- syntax is ingrained in all of our brains, language is just a flavour you put on top
- math is easier to understand if you frame it in language and stories instead of mathematical expressions since many people have an aversion towards math
- everybody can do math. if you can talk, you can also do math. the cognitive facilities needed for both are virtually the same.
- the reason why the point above might not seem to be true is because we have much more practice with language than we do with maths and numbers
informative
inspiring
fast-paced
Listed on the back of this book were the following questions which claimed would be answered and explained in the text.
1. Are there things I can do to improve my mathematical skills? YES
2. Can new-born babies do mathematics? YES
3. Do Mathematicians have a key secret that enables them to do mathematics with apparent ease?
4. Do Chinese and Japanese children have a built-in advantage over American and European children when it comes to learning mathematics? YES
Then it follows with an non-credited Amazon.com quote 'Keith Devlin is trying to be the Carl Sagan of mathematics, and he is succeeding.'
This was one of the most deceptive blurbs I have ever read.
Most of the book was about how humans gained the ability of language and mathematics and how language and mathematics are related. Interesting enough if that's what you wanted to know. This was not exactly what I wanted to get out of the book but the author explained that he was going to be explaining this so I went along with it and decided to continue reading. It turns out that the things mentioned on the back of the book have only paragraphs worth of actual explanation or mention. I wanted to get a little bit of inspiration or even help from this book regarding mathematics and how to start to think like a mathematician. Unfortunately I read the wrong book.
The writing style is good, and overall the book is informative. Though I do find that the author spends so much time desperately backing up his arguments that I'm sometimes left wondering if he's certain about any of it himself. The book is more of an argument than an information-source. This is fine, but my expectations of the book as being helpful at all were completely wrong, instead this book is about basic linguistics and evolution and I feel I wasted my time here. I skipped and skimmed some sections and now I'm happy to start reading something else.
1. Are there things I can do to improve my mathematical skills? YES
2. Can new-born babies do mathematics? YES
3. Do Mathematicians have a key secret that enables them to do mathematics with apparent ease?
4. Do Chinese and Japanese children have a built-in advantage over American and European children when it comes to learning mathematics? YES
Then it follows with an non-credited Amazon.com quote 'Keith Devlin is trying to be the Carl Sagan of mathematics, and he is succeeding.'
This was one of the most deceptive blurbs I have ever read.
Most of the book was about how humans gained the ability of language and mathematics and how language and mathematics are related. Interesting enough if that's what you wanted to know. This was not exactly what I wanted to get out of the book but the author explained that he was going to be explaining this so I went along with it and decided to continue reading. It turns out that the things mentioned on the back of the book have only paragraphs worth of actual explanation or mention. I wanted to get a little bit of inspiration or even help from this book regarding mathematics and how to start to think like a mathematician. Unfortunately I read the wrong book.
The writing style is good, and overall the book is informative. Though I do find that the author spends so much time desperately backing up his arguments that I'm sometimes left wondering if he's certain about any of it himself. The book is more of an argument than an information-source. This is fine, but my expectations of the book as being helpful at all were completely wrong, instead this book is about basic linguistics and evolution and I feel I wasted my time here. I skipped and skimmed some sections and now I'm happy to start reading something else.
informative
slow-paced
According to Devlin, there are two mental abilities that on the face of the earth are unique to humans: mathematics and language. And he wants to convince us that the ability to do mathematics is based on our facility for language. In fact, what he claims in this book is that the feature of our brain that enables us to use language is the same feature that makes it possible for us to do mathematics. Mathematical thought would be simply a somewhat specialized form of off-line thinking.
Calling this book The Math Gene, Devlin is simply adopting a common metaphor, by that he means "an innate facility for mathematical thought". He says it's a facility genetically determined (at least in part), but talk of a single "gene" for mathematics is purely metaphorical.
Devlin hopes to give us some idea of what he discovered in mathematics and why he fell in love with it, but that is not his main aim in this book. Rather, he wants to solve an intriguing puzzle: how did our ancestors acquire a mind for mathematics? And by answering this question, we may begin to understand why so many people find maths so hard. He shall be able to answer to:
- Can we use language to help us be better at math? (Yes.)
- Do mathematicians think in language? (No.)
- What does it feel like to a mathematician to do mathematics?
- Do mathematicians have different brains? (No.)
Devlin defines mathematics like the science of patterns (the phrase is not his, the earliest written source he found is by W.W. Sawyer in 1955), though he tries to explain what mathematicians mean by "patterns". In fact, numerical computations (basic arithmetic) almost never arise in modern mathematics, which is about abstract patterns, abstract structures and abstract relationships. Besides, he claims that the human mind is a pattern recognizer, and that human memory works by association, one thought leading to another.
There is one chapter devoted to a classical discussion: mathematics, invention or discovery. I like it when he says «in my own experience, doing mathematics certainly feels like discovery [...] my sense is that the solution or the proof is "out there" waiting for me to find it».
There are too several chapters dedicated to deepening in language, its structures and evolution. And others going into antropology, offering a picture of human evolution.
And yes, as the subtitle reads, Devlin compares in this book mathematics with gossiping and sopa operas, as a metaphor to explain how mathematicians work and how everyone could succeed in this subject.
Calling this book The Math Gene, Devlin is simply adopting a common metaphor, by that he means "an innate facility for mathematical thought". He says it's a facility genetically determined (at least in part), but talk of a single "gene" for mathematics is purely metaphorical.
Devlin hopes to give us some idea of what he discovered in mathematics and why he fell in love with it, but that is not his main aim in this book. Rather, he wants to solve an intriguing puzzle: how did our ancestors acquire a mind for mathematics? And by answering this question, we may begin to understand why so many people find maths so hard. He shall be able to answer to:
- Can we use language to help us be better at math? (Yes.)
- Do mathematicians think in language? (No.)
- What does it feel like to a mathematician to do mathematics?
- Do mathematicians have different brains? (No.)
Devlin defines mathematics like the science of patterns (the phrase is not his, the earliest written source he found is by W.W. Sawyer in 1955), though he tries to explain what mathematicians mean by "patterns". In fact, numerical computations (basic arithmetic) almost never arise in modern mathematics, which is about abstract patterns, abstract structures and abstract relationships. Besides, he claims that the human mind is a pattern recognizer, and that human memory works by association, one thought leading to another.
There is one chapter devoted to a classical discussion: mathematics, invention or discovery. I like it when he says «in my own experience, doing mathematics certainly feels like discovery [...] my sense is that the solution or the proof is "out there" waiting for me to find it».
There are too several chapters dedicated to deepening in language, its structures and evolution. And others going into antropology, offering a picture of human evolution.
And yes, as the subtitle reads, Devlin compares in this book mathematics with gossiping and sopa operas, as a metaphor to explain how mathematicians work and how everyone could succeed in this subject.