John Derbyshire set for himself a daunting task in writting Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics: to bring the complex world of math down from its ivory tower and present a glimpse of its magic to the laymen reader. For his challenge Derbyshire picked a riddle, the Riemann Hypothesis (RH), that has been tantalizing mathematicians for over a century; a conundrum that Derbyshire labels as the "greatest unsolved problem in mathematics."
In Prime Obsession, he not only attempts to tell the story of Bernhard Riemann and his famous hypothesis but to communicate the complex and high level math involved down in such a way that a laymen reader might glimpse its meaning. It is to his immense credit that Derbyshire makes this interwoven tale of math and history both interesting and illuminating.
A description of the RH should reveal the challenge Derbyshire faced:
All non-trivial zeroes of the zeta function have real part one-half.
Huh? As I said, it is a daunting task to attempt to unpack this dense subject so that someone outside a graduate program in math can understand it. Obviously, the author was well aware of this challenge when he set out:
To an ordinary reader, even a well-educated one, who has had no advanced mathematical training, this is probably quite incomprehensible. It might as well be written in Old Church Slavonic. In this book, as well as describing the history of the Hypothesis, and some of the personalities who have been involved with it, I have attempted to bring this deep and mysterious result within the understanding of a general readership, giving just as much mathematics as is needed to understand it . . . I think I have pitched my book to the level of a person who finished high school math satisfactorily and perhaps went on to a couple of college courses.
I can speak to this issue with some personal experience. After all, the last math class I had was as a sophomore in high school and, as I recall, I didn't do that well. Despite a medium to high level of math phobia, I was able to work my way through (i.e. read some sections whole, skim others) the math and follow the arc of the story and the math. I won't pretend I "understand" the RH but I have a greater appreciation for the concepts and, in fact, know a lot more about math in general as a result. All of this highlights the fact that the author is a patient, witty, and gentle teacher. If he hadn't been, I would’ve given up on the book very early.
To spread the pain, Derbyshire alternates between math heavy and history focused chapters throughout the book. The result is a unique blend of careful calculation and logical building blocks with the history of mathematics during the last 150 years. In its basic form the book tries to build up the reader's foundational knowledge to the point where he can understand the "who, what, and where" of the RH. The "who" is Bernhard Riemann and a number of other key mathematicians of the last century and a half. Derbyshire tries to give the reader a glimpse into the life and mind of this quite, shy, and pious visionary not just to provide the back drop to his famous hypothesis but also, I think, to extol his virtues as a man and a scholar. Part of this backdrop includes Riemann's mentors, contemporaries, and the men who took up the challenge he discarded almost casually in his 1859 paper. Derbyshire touches on a host of interesting men and relationships: Carl Friedrich Gauss and his relationship with the Duke of Brunswick; Leonhard Euler - author of what Derbyshire calls the "Golden Key" - and of Russia under Peter the Great; the interestingly named Pafnuty Lvovich Chebyshev and "Chebyshev's first Result"; Jacques Hadamard and Charles de la Vallee Poussin and their simultaneous but separate work proving the Prime Number Theory; and the inenigmatic David Hilbert who spoke the inspirational words: "We must know, we shall know" (in German). In other words, after having read this book you will be familiar with most of the important mathematicians of the last 150 years and their contributions to the field.
Article comments
1 - Mac Diva
Really? I thought Derbyshire's prime obsession was with being a racist. I'll have to ask more math-oriented friends if the book is any good. Not my forte by a long shot.
2 - Al Barger
Diva, Diva, Diva- Again with the totally gratuitous and unfounded personal attacks. Simply labeling anyone who disagrees with your liberal pieties a "racist" does not make them wrong- nor a bigot.
I got a lotta love for you, my spirited sister, but you really should try to play nicer.
3 - Mac Diva
Not gratuitous at all, Barger. Derbyshire is a white supremacist. I suggest you do some research.
4 - Mac Diva
Addendum. I believe Kevin is talking about the same Derbyshire who is active in the blogosphere. Hopefully, he will clarify that. If it is a different person, I am in error. If not, the guy is one of those 'blacks are genetically inferior' folks. If that isn't racism, nothing is.
5 - Al Barger
The Derbyshire in question is best known as a writer for National Review. I've never known him to express opinions anything like that 'blacks are genetically inferior' nor that any other race was genetically inferior.
In any case, I'd consider your earlier remarks gratuitous in that a book about math history has nothing at all to do with race.
6 - duane
In any case, mathematics supersedes all human attachments to race, religion, gender, and economic class. From a set of axioms, a logical construct follows. People may invent the axioms, but the subsequent logic is immune to personal attitudes and attributes.
7 - Joe
For what it's worth, if I'm not mistaken, Derbyshire's wife is Chinese.
8 - Mac Diva
Derbyshire is one of those 'Asians are okay as long as they don't challenge white people' racists. (You know, they'd better stay in their place.) Blacks, on the other hand, are not even human according to people who think like he does. Note they're declaring white supremacy over Asians, too, just in a somewhat different way -- much like colonialism applied to Africa and Asia. Sure looks like racism to me.
It is possible Derbyshire understands higher mathematics and wrote a good book about it. I'm not saying he didn't. However, that would not negate the fact he is a racist. Ever heard of William Shockley, fellows?
Al, a cursory search of NR or a Googling will give you food for thought. Terms? Try 'blacks,' 'race' or 'discrimination' along with his name.
9 - Mac Diva
Barger, you can start here, with an article that describes Derbyshire maligning blacks, Asians and gays, all on the same page.
10 - AJ
Mac Diva- you make race baiting an art form.
You want to know who he was talking about? US, for calling out that perv scott ritter. This guy is crazy.
11 - Al Barger
Diva, this link you sent me to seems pretty weak at making any case for accusing Derbyshire of any racism.
For starters, it's not a link to a column of Derbyshire's, but to some jackass pinko badmouthing him. I'm not interested in all the spin. He quotes a few brief chunks of Derbyshire's writing out of context.
Even those don't seem to communicate any racism, though. The first one is Derb's response to the Chinese downing of our plane back before 9/11. He suggested that we should go in and destroy it rather than let them have it. This may be questionable public policy, but doesn't have anything to do with them being Asian.
The other stuff involves some observations about the typical physical attributes and talents of various Asian and African subgroups. Do you deny that there are physical and cultural differences between nations and races, or is it just that it's "racist" to notice them? Do you deny that Asians are typically shorter than Africans, for example? Do you deny that Asian-American immigrants are especially dedicated to pursuing education, and often excel in math?
Nothing in Derb's writing as quoted on the anti-war page indicates any intention to denigrate or bad mouth any ethnic group. If that's the worst you've got on him, I'm voting NOT GUILTY.
12 - Kevin Holtsberry
For more information you might wants to see my original interview with Mr. Derbyshire and a follow up specifically dealing with the issues of racism and homophobia.
13 - Mac Diva
Barger, there are pages and pages of such links. So many one could spend weeks reading them. Take your pick.
The people at whose knees Derbyshire has studied racism at are not anonymous, fellows. They are some of the biggest names in the contemporary white supremacist movement. And, not only has Derbyshire echoed them in comments at blogs, he has written for their publications.
I did not expect to have what I said about Derbyshire being a white supremacist be controversial. I was somewhat familiar with him before I came to the blogosphere. But, other bloggers informed me about how deep his obsession is. They've also blogged about him time and again. My guess is most mainstream bloggers who are not isolated already know about this.
14 - Mac Diva
Kevin, I don't know why you offered that as evidence. It just confirms the guy is a racist. Can't you find someone to promote who is worthy of people's respect?
15 - Kevin Holtsberry
I posted the links to get accurate information out there from the person not those out to get him.
I don't belive that Derbyshire is a racist but rather a man willing to admit his prejudices and his cultural background. In the follow up to the first interview I think he makes this clear. The reference to White Supremacists is just stupid. If he was into that group why would he be married to a non-white? His views on race are not a subject for polite company in our PC dominated world but they are not in any way related to White Supremacy or the KKK, etc. People who read and discussed the Bell Curve may be racists in your book but you ought to be smart enough to distinguish them from skinheads and clan members.
I also think it is clear that Derbyshire's prejudices are extrmely mild. He is clearly not out to hurt people or to impose his beliefs on others. The authoritarian diversity groups, however, are basically thought police. If you even think something that is out of line they seek to remove you from aceptable society and brand you with any epiteth at hand.
16 - JR
Kevin, the links were totally appropriate.
And yes he is a racist. He asserts that there are differences in intelligence that are statistically related to race. He acknowledges that some believe those differences to be based on culture, but from my reading he doesn't subscribe to that theory. In other words, he seems to believe that there are inherent differences in average intelligence between races. That makes him a racist, in the same way that a person who believes in the steady-state theory of cosmology would be a "steady-stater".
Yes, that's a far cry from being a member of the Klan. He thinks he should have a right to his beliefs, and I would agree. But not everyone has his degree of prejudice; some people are genuinely blind to the race of the people with whom they interact. And many people, including geneticists, anthropologists, psychologists, socialogist, etc. genuinely believe that differences in average IQ scores are adequately explained by differences in cultural background. Those are the people who are not racist. Derbyshire is not one of those people, nor is he a murderer or thief or otherwise "evil".
17 - Kevin Holtsberry
JR,
You are correct. The problem is that racism is so amphorous that it is hard to nail it down. If you define racism as the belief that there "are differences in intelligence that are statistically related to race" then yes, Derbyshire is in that category. If you define racism as "hating and opposing balck people" then I don't think he fits. Mac Diva seemed intent on lumping Derb in with White Suprmacists, etc. and it was that categorization that I was trying to deny.
See who says you can't have intelligent discussions in the Blogosphere?
18 - Mac Diva
I wish I had gotten back to this sooner.
Believing groups are genetically inferior or superior based on 'race' is the essence of racism. John Derbyshire believes exactly that. There is no evading the fact he is a racist, in the worst way, JR and Kevin.
19 - Al Barger
Diva, where does Derbyshire say that some "groups are genetically inferior or superior based on 'race'"? There are some differences between racial groups, perhaps some slightly different talents here and there.
Again, are you going to pretend that Asian Americans do not show exceptional proclivities for math, or that African Americans are not generally taller than Asians?
Or do you simply expect us to turn off our brains and pretend not to notice obvious differences? Making up differences that don't exist so as to help you oppress another group, that's racism. Noticing actually existing differences between people is simply being awake.
GOD is the racist. It's not John Derbyshire that made Africans taller than Asians.
Perhaps you can conjure up some of your valid legal theories, and drag him into court.
As for John Derbyshire, however, I see absolutely no intent of racial animosity or grasping for advantage, or anything negative, hateful or dishonest.