The Book of Numbers: The Secret of Numbers and How They Changed the World Paperback – February 15, 2008

I loved this book. If I had read it before picking majors, I might have studied math longer in school. The book discusses why some numbers are unique and the history of discovery. Who knew there were secret societies based upon learning math and geometry?

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.

After 30 years of Maths and Computer Science books, it was a great surprise to read such a useful, consice, paedagogicaly great book. Thank you writer !

The book itself is interesting but as other reviews have pointed out there are issues.First, there are careless numerical issues...Second, some history has been ignored (may be the research assistant did not do a good job?)Despite the mistakes, the book is a good read~

well priced and packaged

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!

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.

I bought this book on impulse in a book store. I have always wanted to understand how we invented different kinds of numbers and get deeper into each class of numbers.This book has a lot of anecdotes and is printed nicely, but it needs to have more substance. It needs to get deeper on the numbers and their meaning and applications.

This is really a good book, about how numbers work in all sorts of ways........ engineering and every day life.

Ever wonder where all those pesky theorems came from? Hanker after the origin of geometry? Agonise over how calculus came about?Peter Bentley's book will still your curious mind on all three scores and many more, taking you through a history of numbers and the tools used to manipulate them, from notches in sticks to Fermat's last theorem, through a series of chapters with not altogether conventional labelling. Hence the fourth chapter is Chapter 1, it takes until the seventh to reach Chapter 2, and the thirteenth is Chapter 12a.There are chapters on Nothing (or Zero), Logarithms and Infinity, and along the way we learn about people like Pythagorus (basically a cult leader), Newton (a nutcase to judge by his alchemic writings) and Claude E Shannon, who coined the name "bit", for binary digit, and also invented a motorised pogo stick and rode a unicycle.All good stuff, and generally quite well recounted, though at times a little nerdy.There are a few points of irritation (as where Bentley, a Brit I think, insists on using the American "math" instead of maths), some glaring bloopers, as on page 48 where he triumphantly announces, "you guessed it, 9 and 2 are prime numbers", and a mystery: just where is the puzzle to which an upside down solution is given at the foot of page 127?Some things are also somewhat undercooked. In Chapter 3 the point about the significance of the number three fizzles out, without any thought to why we have so many expressions featuring three (hook, line and sinker, and so on), which I imagine are related to the rhetorical trick of grouping things in three. That makes the point actually seem overdone, as there are plenty of examples of the "magic" of twos (shock and awe, love and marriage) and fours (air, fire, earth and water; the four horsemen of the apocalypse).But overall an enjoyable, educational and engaging read.