- Taschenbuch: 177 Seiten
- Verlag: Allen & Unwin Inc (1. September 2003)
- Sprache: Englisch
- ISBN-10: 1741141591
- ISBN-13: 978-1741141597
- Größe und/oder Gewicht: 21 x 14,1 x 1,1 cm
- Durchschnittliche Kundenbewertung: 2.0 von 5 Sternen Alle Rezensionen anzeigen (1 Kundenrezension)
- Amazon Bestseller-Rang: Nr. 341.459 in Englische Bücher (Siehe Top 100 in Englische Bücher)
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Mathematics and Sex
und über 1 Million weitere Bücher verfügbar für Amazon Kindle .
Erfahren Sie mehr
| |||||||||||||||
Produktinformation |
Mehr über den Autor
Entdecken Sie Bücher, lesen Sie über Autoren und mehr
› Besuchen Sie die Seite von Clio Cresswell auf Amazon
› Besuchen Sie die Seite von Clio Cresswell auf Amazon
Produktbeschreibungen
Pressestimmen
"This book is passionate about the role of mathematics in every human activity, and joyful about matters of sex. Dinner-party conversations may never be the same." --Professor Ian Sloan, president, International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Kurzbeschreibung
You've heard of sexual chemistry? Now try sexual mathematics ...For most people seeing "mathematics" and "sex" side by side is strange enough, let alone discovering there is, in fact, a deep and captivating relationship between the two. Well, it's time to shatter the stereotypes! Join Dr Clio Cresswell on a fun and frisky journey as she reveals how mathematics can unlock the secrets of love and sex, dating and mating. Tackle such age-old dilemmas as: how much should you compromise in a relationship?; exactly what is it that we find attractive in a lover?; and how many partners should you have before you can be sure you've found the one? Jump into bed with "Mathematics and Sex" and discover just how love, lust and the search for the ideal life partner can be spiced up with a little mathematics thrown into the mix.
In diesem Buch
(Mehr dazu)
Buchdeckel | Copyright | Inhaltsverzeichnis | Auszug | Rückseite
Mehr entdecken
Wortanzeiger
Ausgewählte Seiten ansehenWortanzeiger
Buchdeckel | Copyright | Inhaltsverzeichnis | Auszug | Rückseite
Tags(Was ist das?)Bei einem Tag handelt es sich um ein Schlagwort, das zum Produkt passt.
Tags erleichtern allen Kunden die Suche und die Sortierung ihrer Lieblingsprodukte. |
Kundenrezensionen
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen
1 von 1 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Format:Taschenbuch
It is not quite clear which persons should read the book.
I, myself, am a mathematician and even I think that the author does not really explain the (differential) equations and functions she uses. They are just a number of letters. People without formal mathematical training wouldn't see any sense in them and would probably be scared by them.
I am no expert on psychology but the psychological content seems to be rather shallow like "Ask Aunt Mary" from the yellow press. So it is not a textbook in psychology either.
The book is well-written, easy to read, and quite funny, but I'm deeply disappointed, because there is nothing new for me in it.
I, myself, am a mathematician and even I think that the author does not really explain the (differential) equations and functions she uses. They are just a number of letters. People without formal mathematical training wouldn't see any sense in them and would probably be scared by them.
I am no expert on psychology but the psychological content seems to be rather shallow like "Ask Aunt Mary" from the yellow press. So it is not a textbook in psychology either.
The book is well-written, easy to read, and quite funny, but I'm deeply disappointed, because there is nothing new for me in it.
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
10 Rezensionen
46 von 49 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Lighthearted, but light and inconsistent
5. Mai 2005
Format:Taschenbuch|Von Amazon bestätigter Kauf
I bought this book because of an earlier review that complained about no explanation of the formulae. I was hoping that what that really meant is that it was filled with good math and was in depth. Unfortunately, it isn't.
There are some of the chapters that I found very interesting, such as the chapter on attraction cycles. There are other chapters that were really just fluff. Some quick references to some research, and some silly insinuations about the author's bar hopping experiences or lack thereof.
I liked that the book took a number of concepts and translated them to references to mathematics papers.
I disliked that there was not enough math. Formulas are presented without defining any of the terms. So you might be told that an attraction cycle is represented by f(x)= R(x) + a*B(x). But there is no definition of the R function, how the a constant is derived, or the B function. Nor is there a discussion, usually, of the research that went on to define the function and alternatives examined. The book would benefit very much from going into a full definition of the functions, even if it were in an appendix. Instead, you get a little bit of a tease but not enough information to understand.
Likewise, there are cases where the mathematical focus would benefit from a discussion of computer science or engineering techniques. For example, the author describes the complexity of how a dating service might perform similarity matches. She readily admits that she doesn't know what they actually do, so conjectures, makes some references to multidimensional analysis, and more or less leaves it at that. Such a chapter would benefit from a discussion of Bayesian networks, cluster analysis, or other techniques that are common in the computer world as ways to deal with the particular issue.
Although I have not yet finished reading the book, I find that I am starting to skim, which is never a great sign. I'm getting the feeling that the author dug into a few of the topics, but then added a number of chapters to flesh out the table of contents. I will finish the book, but I'm finding that I'm much more interested in the next book on my list. (The Machine That Changed The World)
There are some of the chapters that I found very interesting, such as the chapter on attraction cycles. There are other chapters that were really just fluff. Some quick references to some research, and some silly insinuations about the author's bar hopping experiences or lack thereof.
I liked that the book took a number of concepts and translated them to references to mathematics papers.
I disliked that there was not enough math. Formulas are presented without defining any of the terms. So you might be told that an attraction cycle is represented by f(x)= R(x) + a*B(x). But there is no definition of the R function, how the a constant is derived, or the B function. Nor is there a discussion, usually, of the research that went on to define the function and alternatives examined. The book would benefit very much from going into a full definition of the functions, even if it were in an appendix. Instead, you get a little bit of a tease but not enough information to understand.
Likewise, there are cases where the mathematical focus would benefit from a discussion of computer science or engineering techniques. For example, the author describes the complexity of how a dating service might perform similarity matches. She readily admits that she doesn't know what they actually do, so conjectures, makes some references to multidimensional analysis, and more or less leaves it at that. Such a chapter would benefit from a discussion of Bayesian networks, cluster analysis, or other techniques that are common in the computer world as ways to deal with the particular issue.
Although I have not yet finished reading the book, I find that I am starting to skim, which is never a great sign. I'm getting the feeling that the author dug into a few of the topics, but then added a number of chapters to flesh out the table of contents. I will finish the book, but I'm finding that I'm much more interested in the next book on my list. (The Machine That Changed The World)
19 von 19 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
On the whole an informative book
8. März 2005
Format:Taschenbuch
Yes, I agree with the previous reviewers that this book is an informative light hearted romp through the world of mathematical
modelling of one of biology's most important topics: sex. But, I am giving this book only 3 stars since I find it very irritating to be fed with mathematical equations where no attempt has ever been made to explain the various variables or even a rudimentary explanation. This is just plain show and very very detracting!
modelling of one of biology's most important topics: sex. But, I am giving this book only 3 stars since I find it very irritating to be fed with mathematical equations where no attempt has ever been made to explain the various variables or even a rudimentary explanation. This is just plain show and very very detracting!
19 von 21 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Some Quick Math for Potential Buyers
13. Mai 2006
Format:Taschenbuch
Here is some math for customers considering this book. There are 7 reviews preceeding mine. 5 are right. 2 are wrong.
The reviews that are right have noticed that the book contains no math. The reviews that are wrong have noticed that the book is vaguely about sex. Actually it's not. It's about the difficulty difficulty some academics have in starting a sentence and completing it on the same topic.
The trouble with invoking applied mathematics is that you have to support what you're saying. Therefore when offering an equation or formula you traditionally state what the variables stand for.
I assume that the author has this information but finds it difficult to restate in common English. Almost every topic is concluded in this drift: "Well it would be much too time consuming to explain what this formula means but isn't it nice to know that it exists?"
No. I mean it would be, but we don't know that the formula does exist (hapless readers that we are). To convince us, you have to explain it. Explain: which means state clearly and describe how it works.
Here's an example, misanthropically quoted by MSN this morning.
If you are looking for a mate for life the correct formula is to
go out with 12 people and then choose the next best one after that, which seems to mean better than number 11 but not necessarily as good as number 12. Yes, just ducky, but why is that true?: Sorry, explanation time is over. Exam will be at the sports bar on Saturday night. Don't blow it.
Now look: does this "formula" stand up on its own two feet or is it also drunk and falling off its barstool? Does it still count if all 12 of them dumped YOU? Suppose they were all alcoholics, or verbally abusive? Suppose your relationship with each lasted only three days? Suppose, less dramatically, that following the normal psychological model, you simply picked the same "type" every time? Do you actually have enough information to proceed or should you still see a lawyer about pre-nups. And why 12? Why not 30 or the square root of 17?
Perhaps the author was afraid that if she actually explained herself clearly her readers would spend so much time working out the fractals between margaritas that they'd never go home with anyone. She should ease her mind and write the book correctly. No one is going to take her conclusions to the field. The subject is interesting as theory. And it is interesting. I just wish the author had taken advantage of the fact.
The reviews that are right have noticed that the book contains no math. The reviews that are wrong have noticed that the book is vaguely about sex. Actually it's not. It's about the difficulty difficulty some academics have in starting a sentence and completing it on the same topic.
The trouble with invoking applied mathematics is that you have to support what you're saying. Therefore when offering an equation or formula you traditionally state what the variables stand for.
I assume that the author has this information but finds it difficult to restate in common English. Almost every topic is concluded in this drift: "Well it would be much too time consuming to explain what this formula means but isn't it nice to know that it exists?"
No. I mean it would be, but we don't know that the formula does exist (hapless readers that we are). To convince us, you have to explain it. Explain: which means state clearly and describe how it works.
Here's an example, misanthropically quoted by MSN this morning.
If you are looking for a mate for life the correct formula is to
go out with 12 people and then choose the next best one after that, which seems to mean better than number 11 but not necessarily as good as number 12. Yes, just ducky, but why is that true?: Sorry, explanation time is over. Exam will be at the sports bar on Saturday night. Don't blow it.
Now look: does this "formula" stand up on its own two feet or is it also drunk and falling off its barstool? Does it still count if all 12 of them dumped YOU? Suppose they were all alcoholics, or verbally abusive? Suppose your relationship with each lasted only three days? Suppose, less dramatically, that following the normal psychological model, you simply picked the same "type" every time? Do you actually have enough information to proceed or should you still see a lawyer about pre-nups. And why 12? Why not 30 or the square root of 17?
Perhaps the author was afraid that if she actually explained herself clearly her readers would spend so much time working out the fractals between margaritas that they'd never go home with anyone. She should ease her mind and write the book correctly. No one is going to take her conclusions to the field. The subject is interesting as theory. And it is interesting. I just wish the author had taken advantage of the fact.
Waren diese Rezensionen hilfreich?
Wir wollen von Ihnen hören.
Kunden diskutieren
|
Das Forum zu diesem Produkt
Fragen stellen, Meinungen austauschen, Einblicke gewinnen Aktive Diskussionen in ähnlichen Foren
Kundendiskussionen durchsuchen
|
Ähnliche Foren
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lieblingslisten
Ähnliche Artikel finden
Anhand des Sachgebietes nach ähnlichen Produkten suchen:
Ihr Kommentar
Möchten Sie die Produktinformationen aktualisieren oder Feedback zu den Produktabbildungen geben?
|
