Divine Proportions

David Halprin writes with a review of a new (and mighty odd sounding) mathematics book: "In my humble opinion, we have an unjustified polemic in the world of mathematics, yet again. My background is tertiary level mathematics and concomitant research in specialised areas, so when a friend e-mailed me the link to this book, I was so excited after reading the author's hype, that I ordered a pre-publication copy. My expectations have not been met, unfortunately, hence my analysis precipitated this review." Read on for Halprin's idiosyncractic take on Norman John Wildberger's Divine Proportions: Rational Trigonometry to Universal Geometry. Divine Proportions - Rational Trigonometry to Universal Geometry author Norman John Wildberger pages 300 publisher Wild Egg Pty Ltd rating 2 reviewer David Halprin ISBN summary Wilberger presents an ultimately disappointing vision of a new descriptive system for geometry.

There are various ways to approach Norman's so-called "Rational Trigonometry" and/or "Universal Geometry." I have examined it from various perspectives and it does not live up to Norman's claims, whichever standpoint, that I have taken.

DEFINITIONS

Comments

geesh

[bunions]

Lay off the thesaurus, you're gonna put your eye out. I'm not sure who that overwrought prose is supposed to impress, but it makes me take an instant dislike to the author.

"I have to confess that I look upon his sojourn into Field Theory as a diversion in the same sense that a prestidigitator (magician), in his field of legerdemain (sleight of hand), distracts the audience members, thereby lessening their attention on what's really going on."

yes, thanks for providing an explanation for your $10 college words, otherwise we plebs might not have understood you.

Also, what's up with the German and French from out of nowhere? I'm all for using them when there is no easy english equivalent, but what the hell, "Alas and alack, niente, gar nichts, zilch. Woe is me. Es tut mit leid." Those are just extra words.

Re:geesh

[SatanicPuppy]

Nothing like one mathematician being snarky about another mathematician.

Frankly they both bored the shit out of me after about 5 seconds. Why is it that math is always rendered this way? I've met interesting and articulate mathematicians before, so I know they exist...Are they not allowed to write textbooks? Or at least write reviews about textbooks?

I was pushed into a near-hatred of math by hordes of pretentious math prodigys that had zero use for any student who didn't start off with what they felt was obvious knowledge. The text book talks down to you, the professor talks down to you, and god forbid you ask for a practical example!

I'm not a math genius, but I'm damn good at practical math. The only way I managed to pass calculus the first time was because I happened to be taking it at the same time as a physics course, and I could figure it out where I could see an application in physics. For calc II I shopped around, trying to find a decent book with dismal results. Ended up dropping the class, and shopping for a decent professor the next semester.

Math is cool, but goddamn, the way it's taught is awful and jackasses like this reviewer and the joker who wrote the book he's reviewing are a prime reason why.

Re:geesh

[friedo]

You need the Pretentious Geek/English translator. Here, let me help:

Pretentious, yes, but not Geek. Geeks strive for well-defined, unambiguous terms, rational organization of subject matter, and language that accomplishes exactly as much as is necessary, and no more. Geek writing is efficient.

The OP's analysis is excellent, but frought with writing that goes beyond pretentious. It's just bad. Disorganized, rambling, semi-coherent and full of useless jumbles of letters that communicate nothing.

Re:geesh

[Sage Gaspar]

Mathematician? Well, the reviewer doesn't have a single article on MathSciNet and a quick Google search turns up some submissions to online vanity "general science" journals that have no criteria for acceptance. I tend to think it is a troll. It's certainly not coherent, in either case.

As to your prior experiences, articles like these are part of the reason why mathematicians are distrustful of people that don't find a way to prove themselves. It's an easy field to claim that you've come up with a result, and sometimes it can be a very technical logical fallacy that defeats your efforts. I just wasted a half hour of my time looking up this guy's name for any signs of credibility and reading through the comments.

In experimental fields, even if someone isn't very good, at least they can be used as a technician or research goon. In math, if you're not bright enough to come up with results, you're a non-starter. I know an undergrad who spent four years struggling through basic undergrad classes with the goal of grad school, and then got to his senior year and none of them would take him. It would almost have been a service if someone had been more blunt earlier on.

Of course, I'm not really talking about the calculus sequence, linear algebra I, that kind of thing. Those are more for engineers and scientists. But there you have to bear in mind that to math majors it's the equivalent of Humanities_Course 101, and I dunno about you, but I've taken my share of shitty-ass 101 courses. It's usually because it's foisted off on the newest professor that can't get out of it, they in turn foist off a lot of the work on the TAs, and it's not interesting for anyone's research. It's not a great situation, but then again there are exceptions. I went to a small, teaching-focused school, and my math professors were very personable and great teachers. They loved student research because they got so few who were motivated. I spent some time at a research school, and had a lot more opportunities, but the professors were a lot less accessible and not as good at teaching. It's a trade-off and something worth thinking about before you settle on a school.

Re:Too bad

[eln]

I do not include creationism in this category because it is not new

It also isn't science.

My idiosyncratic take

[Junky191]

I believe this is the most pretentiously-worded article blurb that has ever been seen on Slashdot.

El Sucko

[dcollins]

This review freakin' sucks.

I have an M.A. in Mathematics. I've read some of the "Rational Trigonometry" online before, and yes, it is pretty oddball and has its weakness and can be criticized.

But this review is borederline psychotic. It is poorly written, full of ad hominem attacks, lots of made-up grammar and word usage, wierd random abbreviations... it's scatterbrained, repetitive, and unnecessarily hostile.

There is a critical review to be written about "Rational Trigonometry", but this isn't it. I may not like our current government, but I'm still not going to listen to some incoherent homeless guy raving about it on the street.

A New Kind of Science (was Re:Too bad)

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes it seems that the only really new ideas being tossed around (outside of lab research and the like) in science are from Wolfram in his book, A New Kind of Science.

I'm still trying to figure out if this was meant to be tongue-in-cheek or not, given the context. A New Kind of Science is a self-published, non-peer-reviewed, 2000-page testament to the sort of hubris that can only afflict mathematical prodigies who lack meaningful human contact at the age when normal people experience social development.

Wolfram performs an over-analysis of a very narrow subset of cellular automata while claiming to have invented the field, that 'mainstream science' refuses to look at this incredible discovery, and that his 'new kind of science' based on recursion and cellular automata will change the world, although he has no idea how.

It reads like something written after reading Godel, Escher, Bach, smoking pot, and thinking, "I'm thinking about thinking. Now I'm thinking about thinking about thinking. Now I'm....whoa, I wonder what that looks like on graph paper?"

From the reviewer's not-so-clear description, it appears this book falls into a similar category.

How about a more qualified reviewer?

[nonlnear]

From the review:

However, you don't have to read between the lines to see on page 21 that Wildberger excludes 'characteristic two fields.' Although I am not versed in Field Theory, I opine that such an exclusion does not apply to classical geometry and/or trigonometry, otherwise he would have said so. So, he is already implicitly confessing, to a failure of Rational Geometry in the global sense.

However, you do have to have the slightest clue what you are talking about if you are going to call the author on the "characteristic two" exclusion.

Wildberger may be a little "out there" (alright, he's completely nuts), but this point is not one you can fault him for. There are a LOT of results which exclude fields of characteristic two. It's not a big deal. In fact, it's commendable that Wildberger has explored the ramifications of his framework in any fields with non-zero characteristic, as the "normal" pedestrian conceptualizations of geometry don't apply.

It would have been nice if /. could have posted a review by somebody who is actually qualified to critique the book. And no, I am not such a person, but I know a couple people who are.