The Book of Numbers: The Secret of Numbers and How They Changed the World [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

With a title like Honorary Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Computer Science, University College London," one would expect Peter J. Bentley's work to be quite good. Dr. Bentley's bio on his website clearly communicates that this is a man who is quite intelligent. His work outside of writing is a strong indicator that he is a cut or two above the norm.

As such, there is no excuse for some of the outright errors in his writing. Trivial errors that a first year math major knows to avoid.

When discussing prime and composite numbers, Dr. Bentley uses the number 72 to illustrate how any number that is not prime can be broken down into a product of prime factors. He states that 72 = 4 * 18, and 18 = 2 * 9 and 4 = 2 * 2. Thus the factors are 2 * 2 * 2 * 9. "And, you guessed it, both 9 and 2 are prime numbers." Call me crazy, but 9 is not a prime number. It is a composite of 3 * 3, where 3 IS prime. A mistake like this is utter carelessness.

The next paragraph leaves no time for respite. When speaking of how Euclid proved this concept he states "He didn't just hope that his theorem was true. If he relied on hope, we'd still be calling it a ---theory.---" The mathematical word Dr. Bentley was looking for here is "Conjecture." A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. By saying something would be a theory if it was unsubstantiated, he propogates a continuing myth about science and knowledge.

And Dr. Bentley does not seem the type to want to promote that area of misunderstanding. In fact, much of his writing intimates a strong bias against religious belief and persons (The people who so often claim that evolution is "just a theory"). Following his incorrect statement about theories, he provides an example of proof by contradiction. Within the example, he uses The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) as the moving force of the proof. The FSM is a well-known parody religion used (and created) to make fun of Intelligent Design and Christianity. His bias continues when he's speaking of irrational numbers and the Pythagoreans. He states that when they realized irrational numbers conflicted with their religious beliefs they "did what any good religious sect does and suppressed the truth." Such a blanketing statement is an unpardonable logical fallacy. Bias and beliefs are an aspect of who we are, but they have no business being in a popular science book about numbers.

I have been using The Book of Numbers as my bathroom reader for a while now. Previously, I have found the information to be fascinating and enjoyable. Now, however, after stumbling across blatant errors in quick succession, I find myself more concerned about the truth value of Dr. Bentley's statements than about actually reading the book. As a senior research fellow, and an obviously brilliant man, he should know better.

Any book with chapter numbers like -1, 0, .00000000001, e, c and i is worth reading. That read has been quite enjoyable except for the errors which occur throughout. For example, the number 79 is rendered in Roman numerals as LXXVIIII rather than LXXIX (page 19) and on page 48 (as noted by another reviewer) the assertion is made that "And, you guessed it, 9 and 2 are prime numbers". Since 9 has 3 as a factor, it clearly isn't prime. Several more examples could be cited, but these will give you an idea of what to expect.

Overall, the book is very enjoyable and written in an easily accessible manner. I just wish that the proofreading and editing had been more thorough.

i am only on the 3rd or 4th chapter (the chapters aren't numbered traditionally so off the top of my head...i don't know).

this is a great book all about the history of numbers and how we came to use them in everyday life and in higher sciences. it includes philosophy information (which is a hit with me) and is in depth without being overwhelming. i have read other math history books which essentially cover the same topics (the history isn't any different, no matter how its written), but i prefer this one. it has graphs, diagrams, and lots of historical images. it also has side bar items to explain some of the theories as they are 'discovered' in time.

i've read euclid's window, which is a math history book that made me fall in love with the subject of numbers and history (and made me pursue a double degree in mathematics and philosophy). i like this one better, if only for the photos, but i do recommend them both!