Comments are read-only. Visit Hacker News to participate in the discussion.

tveita 21 hours ago | 0 points
I quite liked this interview:<p>Terence Tao explains 6 essential mathematical concepts: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=OOMx2BHHWtE" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=OOMx2BHHWtE</a>
flowerlad 20 hours ago | 0 points
The amazon preview [1] does not even show the contents page. How am I supposed to check if I might be interested in this book?<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0374621799?tag=macmillan-20" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0374621799?tag=macmillan-20</a>
kirubakaran 20 hours ago | 0 points
The above page has the ToC:<p>1. numbers as the gateway to quantitative thinking<p>2. algebra as the gateway to abstraction<p>3. geometry as a way to calculate beyond what we can see<p>4. probability as a tool to navigate uncertainty with rigorous thinking<p>5. analysis as a means to tame the very large or the very small<p>6. dynamics as the mathematics of change
redwood 7 hours ago | 0 points
Super interesting that geometry is about going beyond what we can see since in my limited world view it is more specifically that which we can see..
nkoren 6 hours ago | 0 points
That&#x27;s where geometry starts -- in the same way as numbers start by counting on fingers. When you run out of fingers, numbers keep going. When you run out of visible dimensions, geometry keeps going too.
otabdeveloper4 15 hours ago | 0 points
&gt; numbers as the gateway to quantitative thinking<p>That&#x27;s a historical artifcat, not an innate property. (Math was first invented in the Bronze Age for accounting and architecture.)<p>There&#x27;s a theoretical parallel universe with a mathematics where numbers aren&#x27;t first on the ladder but down there around number five. (Ironically computers are an example of that. Figuring out how to do numbers when all you have is finite sequences from an alphabet is advanced CS.)
seanhunter 11 hours ago | 0 points
Firstly are you so very sure he claimed that is an innate property? That numbers are a gateway to quantitative reasoning seems a perfectly reasonable claim either way.<p>Secondly there are lots of mathematical objects that significantly predate the bronze age (eg <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Ishango_bone" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Ishango_bone</a> but there are others) and because these objects are so old we have no idea why math was first invented.<p>Thirdly I have no idea the relevance of the theoretical “late numbers “ parallel universe but this thread is about a book in this one.
otabdeveloper4 11 hours ago | 0 points
&gt; That Numbers are a gateway to quantitative reasoning seems a perfectly reasonable claim either way<p>This isn&#x27;t true though. It&#x27;s not supported by anything except Bronze Age tradition.<p>I.e., when teaching kids advanced math at an early age it&#x27;s often better to skip numbers altogether and start with set theory or logic. Many kids find that a much easier gateway.
adrian_b 8 hours ago | 0 points
Set theory and logic stay below numbers, but they do not belong to quantitative reasoning.<p>By definition, quantities, either discrete or continuous, as already classified by Aristotle, are the properties that can be expressed by numeric values, as a result of counting for discrete quantities, or as a result of measuring for continuous quantities.<p>Properties that are not quantities, but which can be compared, to determine which is greater or less, or if they are equal, are qualities (also by definition; there are also properties that can neither be expressed by a number nor compared, so they are neither quantities nor qualities, e.g. the properties of belonging to a certain subset or of having a certain name).<p>The simplest numbers, i.e. cardinal numbers a.k.a. natural numbers, are equivalence classes of sets, so indeed the theory of numbers is built upon that of sets (a.k.a. multitudes in older language), but this does not contradict in any way the title from the book, because quantitative reasoning refers to only a part of mathematics, not to all of it.<p>In medieval education, the subjects of learning were partitioned into 3 trivial sciences, which were those that do not need quantitative reasoning, which were grammar, logic and rhetoric, plus 4 mathematical sciences, which were those that require quantitative reasoning, which were arithmetic, geometry, music (i.e. harmony) and astronomy.<p>Therefore the original meaning of the word &quot;mathematics&quot; referred to the sciences that need quantitative reasoning, while logic and set theory were outside &quot;mathematics&quot; (at that time the primitive form of set theory was included in &quot;logic&quot;, i.e. the concepts of set operations and of logic quantifiers).<p>Much later, towards the end of 19th century, due to their importance for describing mathematics in a rigorous way, mathematical logic and set theory became included in &quot;mathematics&quot;.<p>Humans have learned how to handle big numbers only very recently, not much before the invention of writing and the Bronze Age (the &quot;Bronze&quot; age happened only several thousands years later after the first use of agriculture and after the first use of metals like lead, copper and gold).<p>On the other hand, small numbers are perceived directly by the senses and recognized, not only by humans, but also by many animals.
bmacho 10 hours ago | 0 points
&gt; I.e., when teaching kids advanced math at an early age it&#x27;s often better to skip numbers altogether and start with set theory or logic.<p>What do you mean by &quot;often better&quot;. Has it even ever been tried out?
GTP 10 hours ago | 0 points
I belive this is what was attemped in France (they taught set teory in an abstract way in elementary school), but with poor results and abandoned this approach after some time.
otabdeveloper4 9 hours ago | 0 points
&gt; Has it even ever been tried out?<p>Of course, and it&#x27;s standard practice in some places.<p>P.S. I&#x27;m talking about extracurricular math clubs&#x2F;circles. School curriculum is a separate thing that&#x27;s divorced from actual math.
bmacho 9 hours ago | 0 points
Math club for set theory before 1st grade and numbers? Do you have a link?
softbuilder 19 hours ago | 0 points
Amazon isn&#x27;t even trying these days. They seem to no longer care about the shopping experience, especially for media.<p>That said, you can switch to the Kindle version and request a sample. The kindle samples usually have a ToC.
arunix 9 hours ago | 0 points
This listing does have the TOC<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.co.uk&#x2F;Six-Maths-Essentials-Model-World&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0241829488&#x2F;525-8658703-7336314" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.co.uk&#x2F;Six-Maths-Essentials-Model-World&#x2F;dp...</a>
rahimnathwani 14 hours ago | 0 points
Click on the kindle option. They click the &#x27;Download sample&#x27; button.<p>Or click on the link to a sample chapter, listed on the submission:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencefriday.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;six-math-essentials-book-excerpt&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencefriday.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;six-math-essentials-b...</a>
jmmcd 9 hours ago | 0 points
I read the sample chapter: it&#x27;s surprisingly bad! (He&#x27;s a good writer normally.)<p>It&#x27;s boring, and badly-written (the Greeks didn&#x27;t use symbols like x, instead they used x), with poorly-chosen examples (curtains not a good example of abstraction; correlated risks a good example of correlation, which is off-topic here, but a bad example for algebra), and lacking pictures that would help (the wine barrel).
adrian_b 7 hours ago | 0 points
Your quotation is taken out of context, so it has become completely meaningless, but the original text is not so bad as your weird quotation implies.<p>It is true that the author failed to express himself very clearly, but what he says is that the ancients did not use an abstract unknown denoted by an arbitrary symbol like &quot;x&quot;, but they used instead of it the length of some line segment, instead of the squared value of the unknown, the area of some square constructed on that segment, instead of the cubed value of the unknown, the volume of a cube constructed on that segment, transforming thus an abstract algebra problem into a concrete geometry problem, which then they solved.<p>While that excerpt may not be the best example of mathematical writing, the only conclusion that I can take from it is not that the book must be bad, it might be good, but that the book is written at a very elementary level, so it should be good for children or at most teenagers, but it does not seem to provide any information or idea that would be unfamiliar to someone already experienced in mathematics.<p>As a child, I have read many books of &quot;popular&quot; mathematics, some of which have made a lasting impression, and perhaps this book is as good as those, taking into account other texts written by Terence Tao, which I have read. Thus the book might be good for a child&#x2F;teenager who likes mathematics.
NordStreamYacht 20 hours ago | 0 points
The paperback is 89 pages, the hardcover is 128. That&#x27;s the only info Amazon shows me. And there&#x27;s an audiobook, which is odd for a maths book.
globular-toast 14 hours ago | 0 points
Click through to the UK Publisher and there&#x27;s a &quot;look inside&quot; with the TOC.
rramadass 17 hours ago | 0 points
From a previous discussion - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=47116851">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=47116851</a>
wpmaven 8 hours ago | 0 points
The link: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.quantabooks.org&#x2F;books&#x2F;six-math-essentials&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.quantabooks.org&#x2F;books&#x2F;six-math-essentials&#x2F;</a>
prideout 22 hours ago | 0 points
I heard he was writing a book about the Cosmic Distance Ladder. I was looking forward to that, I hope this isn&#x27;t what it evolved into.
losvedir 17 hours ago | 0 points
He did a great collaboration with 3Blue1Brown on it: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;YdOXS_9_P4U" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;YdOXS_9_P4U</a> . Didn&#x27;t realize there a book coming, cool!
chrisczura 21 hours ago | 0 points
It is listed as &#x27;in preparation&#x27; when you click on |&gt; Books and scroll to the bottom of the list at: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;teorth.github.io&#x2F;tao-web&#x2F;index.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;teorth.github.io&#x2F;tao-web&#x2F;index.html</a>
gnabgib 21 hours ago | 0 points
You could link directly: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;teorth.github.io&#x2F;tao-web&#x2F;climbing-the-cosmic-distance-ladder.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;teorth.github.io&#x2F;tao-web&#x2F;climbing-the-cosmic-distanc...</a>
koolba 17 hours ago | 0 points
What age range or skill level is this targeting?
bmitc 16 hours ago | 0 points
It is very manageable, if not overly basic. Standard, general secondary school education is good enough.
pdhborges 23 hours ago | 0 points
The book is quite basic. Don&#x27;t expect to get much out of it if you have a STEM degree.
ballmerpoint 22 hours ago | 0 points
It is still good as a book on philosophy of mathematics. Not the best, perhaps, but a solid introduction.
black_knight 20 hours ago | 0 points
Like, the epistemology and metaphysics of mathematics? That kind of philosophy? Realism, idealism and all that jazz?
ballmerpoint 20 hours ago | 0 points
Nothing so esoteric — it’s written for the popular audience. But there’s a lot of “what is mathematics?” or “how do we do mathematics?” Some random highlights:<p>&gt; A big part of mathematical training is becoming acquainted with different concepts and recognizing how they’re cousins to each other.<p>&gt; I encourage everyone to fool around with numbers—some enthusiasts discover important patterns that way, and some famous mathematicians, like the late John Conway, made a career of it.<p>&gt; When we give word problems in school, we tend to cherry-pick perfect models that have one correct answer. Rather than teach a preordained procedure, we could encourage exploration by asking students to fix more realistic models where things are slightly noisy or slightly incorrect.
sanderjd 20 hours ago | 0 points
I&#x27;m hoping my kids will get a lot out of it as they grow up :)
caaqil 23 hours ago | 0 points
&gt; The book is quite basic.<p>Perplexing how it&#x27;s on the front page then given the background of the median HN user (presumably technical with some STEM background in general, some pure VC bros peppered in etc).<p>The Tao love conquers all, as it were.
golly_ned 22 hours ago | 0 points
I enjoy reading less technical books even on technical topics I know about. They serve a different purpose.
calebkaiser 22 hours ago | 0 points
Eh, I just like reading new books on mathematics, even if they&#x27;re covering well trod ground. I think a lot of people in math are like this. I&#x27;m not endlessly grinding through introductory textbooks, but there is something nice about seeing someone brilliant give their take on something fundamental. And the cultural differences you get in reading different texts from different periods or from different authors is really stimulating, for me at least.
JoshTriplett 12 hours ago | 0 points
1) Not everyone, and 2) some of us regularly find ourselves recommending books to others, or for kids.
tommy92 13 hours ago | 0 points
Basic knowledge resources are very common in HN in front page. And such resource from someone known to write very well will be helpful for newbies even from lesser known personalities. Shared here all the time so why pretend its not common.
stldev 17 hours ago | 0 points
I pre-ordered some time ago, and received a copy this morning. I love it.<p>It&#x27;s direct and well-written; a high-level overview of mathematics from numbers to analysis and dynamics. I think it&#x27;s well organized, if brief at ~100pp.<p>This would be a great read for laypeople as well as a potential gap-filler for anyone in STEM.
cgio 14 hours ago | 0 points
Books should be brief, technical ones at least. I cannot stand the filler pages where the same concept is repeated again and again.
bajard 9 hours ago | 0 points
Probability is where I always get it wrong. Experiments and AI are my saviors.
htatche 12 hours ago | 0 points
How does it compare to Basic Mathematics by Serge Lang?
3abiton 12 hours ago | 0 points
I haven&#x27;t read Tao&#x27;s book yet, but Lang&#x27;s very ... schooly kinda book. From what I gather of the Tao&#x27;s ToC it&#x27;s more approachable as a non-fiction type of book.
augment_me 4 hours ago | 0 points
Why waste money on the book when you can just ask Claude about this?
jfr6fgjk 20 hours ago | 0 points
Beats Math Essentials by Terrence Howard.
slwvx 21 hours ago | 0 points
The &quot;algebra excerpt&quot; [1] doesn&#x27;t impress me at all. Sure, maybe equations intimidate some, but why not add some images or figures? Is that page really one of the six chapters, or is it 1&#x2F;10 of a chapter?<p>Is this a book for children?<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencefriday.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;six-math-essentials-book-excerpt&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencefriday.com&#x2F;articles&#x2F;six-math-essentials-b...</a>
aabhay 18 hours ago | 0 points
Despite the downvoting I agreed with this comment completely
antimora 21 hours ago | 0 points
Received my copy today via Amazon.
sanderjd 20 hours ago | 0 points
What do you think?
mmooss 15 hours ago | 0 points
Tao&#x27;s essentials are, &quot;... numbers as the gateway to quantitative thinking; algebra as the gateway to abstraction; geometry as a way to calculate beyond what we can see; probability as a tool to navigate uncertainty with rigorous thinking; analysis as a means to tame the very large or the very small; and dynamics as the mathematics of change.&quot;*<p>Does Tao intend that as the 100,000 ft view of all mathematics, a way to categorize (almost) all of it, the roots of the mathematics tree? Are these <i>the</i> essentials or just <i>some</i> valuable ones.<p>For comparison, Gowers begins a much larger book with, &quot;there is a crude division that undoubtedly works well as a first approximation, namely the division of mathematics into algebra, geometry, and analysis.&quot; [0]<p>There must be other schemes out there? What are the respected ones?<p>[0] Timothy Gowers, ed. <i>The Princeton Companion to Mathematics</i>. p.1 (2008)
bmacho 9 hours ago | 0 points
&gt; There must be other schemes out there? What are the respected ones?<p>I don&#x27;t think there are any other divisions there, not really. Disputing such soft statements on algebra and geometry would be like claiming that the horror genre is all about making people laugh and comedy movies are produced to induce fear.
coderenegade 14 hours ago | 0 points
Gowers&#x27; division misses probability, though, which really is its own thing. Similarly, counting is the foundation for the axiomatization of mathematics and probably deserves its own category. They all bleed into one another (analysis uses counting for its formalization, probability uses both counting and analysis), but they can each stand on their own informally (and did, in some cases for centuries).
bmitc 16 hours ago | 0 points
I got this book today, as I had it on pre-order. It&#x27;s a bit disappointing because, on a quick count, there are only five pages with pictures. And I think I saw just a few equations. It&#x27;s a bit strange to leave out two essential mechanisms for how mathematicians work and think in a book named <i>Six Math Essentials</i>.
lbeckman314 23 hours ago | 0 points
Previous Discussion (February 2026): <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=47113796">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=47113796</a><p>TIL about Quanta Books, thanks OP — will be checking this out! :D