Scan barcode
nevinator's review against another edition
Math books are my forever my purgatory. This book does an excellent (ish) job of explaining, at the barest level, the intro knowledge to understand the question being asked about the Riemann hypothesis.
The other half is way more fascinating, the history and the mathematicians who tried to solve the theorem. The history was way more compelling, but also just scratching the surface. The book is always noting how it doesn’t have time to explain about the thing it wants to explain, at the level it expects it’s audience to be.
The high, for me, was reading about how mathematics was shaped by the politics of the Napoleonic era of Europe (you would be surprised at how often golden ages of math happen within and after major wars). The low was the writing style being to friendly, like a YouTube video essay on math with too many jokes. Though it has the blessing of being published in the 90’s, it shows how little accessible, non fiction math books have gone since than.
This is why I stopped reading
The other half is way more fascinating, the history and the mathematicians who tried to solve the theorem. The history was way more compelling, but also just scratching the surface. The book is always noting how it doesn’t have time to explain about the thing it wants to explain, at the level it expects it’s audience to be.
The high, for me, was reading about how mathematics was shaped by the politics of the Napoleonic era of Europe (you would be surprised at how often golden ages of math happen within and after major wars). The low was the writing style being to friendly, like a YouTube video essay on math with too many jokes. Though it has the blessing of being published in the 90’s, it shows how little accessible, non fiction math books have gone since than.
This is why I stopped reading
beets_enjoyer's review against another edition
3.0
Having had my first impressions of Derbyshire formed by his absurdly offensive "The Talk: Nonblack Version.", and the scandal it evoked, I went into this book with a certain sense of apprehension. Somehow I was not convinced that anyone capable of such crude and disgusting racism would have something appealing to say about, well, anything.
The author's politics are thankfully not on display in Prime Obsession, nor is his trademark crankiness. However, there is a certain sense of stubbornness and disregard for the audience. For example, he flat out states at the beginning of the book that unless you have the prerequisite mathematical knowledge that he has arbitrarily defined, you will never be able to understand the Riemann Hypothesis. Parts of the book have a very unsophisticated structure. Derbyshire will sometimes make little attempt at all to explain his material and just solve some equations in a textbook fashion.
Some people might find this kind of brazen attitude intriguing. Judging by the ratings this book have received, there are quite a number of them. But to me, it just seems like a rather crass way of bludgeoning the reader into accepting bad handiwork. Reading Ian Stewart's [b:In Pursuit of the Unknown: 17 Equations That Changed the World|13237758|In Pursuit of the Unknown 17 Equations That Changed the World|Ian Stewart|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1344679004s/13237758.jpg|18675699], I'm struck by how elegantly Stewart (a fellow Brit) is able to convey the wonder of his material without dumbing it down. It makes Derbyshire's attempts seem quite shoddy by comparison.
The book does have a lot redeeming qualities. Derbyshire is clearly enthusiastic about the material and handles the biographical portions of the book well. Prime Obsession succeeds convincingly at a meta level, demonstrating why math at this level of abstraction is something that people would care about and even devote major portions of their lives to. Having never heard of the Zeta function going in, and barely grasping complex numbers, I still felt compelled by the deep mystery of the RH as Derbyshire pulled me down the rabbit hole.
I am rather conflicted about Prime Obsession. It will bore you out of your skull unless you have some mathematical foreknowledge, and I do not feel the author did as good as he could (or, as some have suggested, as good a job as could be done) to explain the RH to a lay audience. But it still manages to have qualities in spite of this that make it very worth reading. To the right person, I would probably recommend it. But part of me hopes a better alternative will come along, where the material is not burdened by an author of Derbyshire's nature and reputation.
The author's politics are thankfully not on display in Prime Obsession, nor is his trademark crankiness. However, there is a certain sense of stubbornness and disregard for the audience. For example, he flat out states at the beginning of the book that unless you have the prerequisite mathematical knowledge that he has arbitrarily defined, you will never be able to understand the Riemann Hypothesis. Parts of the book have a very unsophisticated structure. Derbyshire will sometimes make little attempt at all to explain his material and just solve some equations in a textbook fashion.
Some people might find this kind of brazen attitude intriguing. Judging by the ratings this book have received, there are quite a number of them. But to me, it just seems like a rather crass way of bludgeoning the reader into accepting bad handiwork. Reading Ian Stewart's [b:In Pursuit of the Unknown: 17 Equations That Changed the World|13237758|In Pursuit of the Unknown 17 Equations That Changed the World|Ian Stewart|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1344679004s/13237758.jpg|18675699], I'm struck by how elegantly Stewart (a fellow Brit) is able to convey the wonder of his material without dumbing it down. It makes Derbyshire's attempts seem quite shoddy by comparison.
The book does have a lot redeeming qualities. Derbyshire is clearly enthusiastic about the material and handles the biographical portions of the book well. Prime Obsession succeeds convincingly at a meta level, demonstrating why math at this level of abstraction is something that people would care about and even devote major portions of their lives to. Having never heard of the Zeta function going in, and barely grasping complex numbers, I still felt compelled by the deep mystery of the RH as Derbyshire pulled me down the rabbit hole.
I am rather conflicted about Prime Obsession. It will bore you out of your skull unless you have some mathematical foreknowledge, and I do not feel the author did as good as he could (or, as some have suggested, as good a job as could be done) to explain the RH to a lay audience. But it still manages to have qualities in spite of this that make it very worth reading. To the right person, I would probably recommend it. But part of me hopes a better alternative will come along, where the material is not burdened by an author of Derbyshire's nature and reputation.
isaac_speelman's review against another edition
challenging
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
jcovey's review against another edition
4.0
I came to this book looking for an explanation of the Riemann Zeta Hypothesis, what it is and why it's so important, and this book delivers in spades. I can't help but wish it was aimed at a slightly more math literate audience. The book tries hard to assume no knowledge of calculus in the reader, which has a tendency to slow things down quite a bit. Still, I understand why that assumption was made and Derbyshire achieves his aim of presenting some fabulous mathematics to the widest possible audience.
bakudreamer's review against another edition
Just read a little of to get the idea
losing_the_plot's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
informative
inspiring
mysterious
medium-paced
4.25
jumbleread's review against another edition
4.0
The book is well organized. The work to figure out primes was admirable.
michielstock's review against another edition
5.0
Never thought pure mathematics as boring, but Prime Obsession had me on the edge of my seat! Both a biography and a layman intro to the Riemann hypothesis, it is one of the better mathematics popsci I've read.
madhukaraphatak's review against another edition
3.0
Read 50% of the book. Way too much mathematics for the casual reader. Good in background and writing but frequent jumping between topics makes it harder to follow along. Would have been a better read if the author had kept it simple narrative flow.