I've been on a math-for-norms book binge. Singh then Eastaway and now Jordan Ellenberg's How not to be Wrong (2014). Which is the same title as a book by James "LBC" O'Brien. The subtitles distinguish: JE . . . The Power Of Mathematical Thinking [US] OR The Hidden Maths of Everyday Life [UK IE] vs JO'B . . . the Art of Changing Your Mind. Want an insight into the tawdry prejudice that can inhabit the head of a radio presenter [or your own]? Choose O'Brien. Deal with your own math-anxiety and get a better crap-detector? That would be Ellenberg. He doesn't claim that math is easy, but maintains that you will be better off [and less often bamboozled by sharks] if you knuckle down to the work of squeezing sense from numbers. Compared to Singh and Eastaway, Ellenberg's book has more pages and a teeny-tiny font and many even smaller footnotes and an index: it is meant to be taken seriously, hence "thud" in the title. But it is also meant to make math fun and some of Ellenberg's waggish asides
It's also okay to make your own fun where math meets literature. As when you hunt for ELS [equidistant letter sequences] in The Torah, [or like Meeee in genomes, or GenBank or Magna Carta]. The Torah = the Pentateuch = The first five books of the Old Testament: Gen Exo Lev Num Deu = The Word of God! About 30 years ago, three math-comp-phys whizzes loaded up the Torah and wrote a program to look for hidden messages in a text written 2,500 years ago in Hebrew. In fine, they looked by ELS for, and found, the names and b.days of 32 'modern' rabbis. They also jumbled the order of the holy letters to see whether you could find that good of signal in random Hebrew letters . . . and [compufolk can do that sort of thing in perl or python] then re-jumbled the text a million times to get a measure of just how unlikely were their prophet-finding results! It caused a stir at the time and not just among people who'd done the bar-mitzvah. Push-back came quickly and Ellenberg uses the tale to be skeptical about other crazy 'truths' which seize the public imagination every few years [Dan Brown, we see you].One of the themes which runs through the book is Utility: how evaluate competing desiderata so as to come up to some optimum solution. He quotes one pundit as saying that "If you never miss a plane, you're not doing it right spending too much time at airports". To get to the airport in Good Time, you've skipped breakfast and left home before airport-shuttle: so you're down the cost of a taxi AND a €9 croissant from Costa Packet. If you fly twice a month those deficits (we'll ignore the sleep deficit and the hazard of using the airport t'ilet) will far exceed the cost of rescheduling the missed flight. And not only travel: Surgeons who never kill patients aren't pushing the envelope of their cutty craft.
Also The Variance! There is a whole chapter on winning the Lotto. For about a decade, Massachusetts ran a lottery where on some occasions, the expected utility of a $2 ticket was ~$5. Something, something roll-down excess jackpot something something match 5 winners. On such draw-days, at least three different consortia bought A Lot of tickets. One group wrote a script to generate 000s of different 6 number combos. Another group just rocked up to convenience stores with $10,000 in cash and did quick-pick; which saved the confederates some RSI from making pen-marks on Lotto forms. The winnings were about the same for each strategy. Across the state, ordinary folk were winning also but with only $2 up-front their odds of winning were slim enough. The consortia, by covering more bases, smoothed out the variance and more or less ensured that they would cash out close to the expected utility.
Because we love each other ver' much, Ellenberg has some overlap with The Blob: Poincaré's bus-step; Cantor's infinities; Abraham's armour; Nate Silver's uncertainty; Shannon's bits; Hamming's bit-errors; Pearson & Son. I recommend this book: you don't have to read all 120,000 words. And it will help your crap-detector for interpreting Gallup polls, press headlines, and political pundits.
Amen to this: "I think we have to teach math that values precise answers but also intelligent approximation, that demands the ability to deploy existing algorithms fluently but also the horse sense to work things out on the fly, that mixes rigidity with a sense of play". But later he says ""Nobody ever looks in the mirror and says "Let's face it, I'm smarter than Gauss"."" Maybe we should hope that at least one reader may grow up to be that Nobody.










