# One to Nine

## The Inner Life of Numbers

eBook - 2010
Average Rating:
Rate this:
6
1
1
Random House, Inc.
Have you ever thought about the uniqueness and simplicity of One, or what it means to be Two? Is Four really so square and why are there Seven days of the week, Seven deadly sins, or even Seven wonders of the world? In One to Nine, Andrew Hodges brings numbers to life. Inspired by the popularity of Sudoku – and millennia of human attempts to figure things out – this pithy, kaleidoscopic book takes a fresh, witty and hands-on approach to such various topics as musical harmony, code breaking, and probabilities in poker and lotteries. It probes the surprising symmetries of time, space, matter, and forces. It even goes to the heart of what computers can do.

Andrew Hodges weaves together the inner life of numbers – the patterns of primes and powers that we try to grasp, and that have us in their grip. Accessible to anyone with a general curiosity and interest in puzzles, One to Nine might even have you completing a fiendish Sudoku in record time.

Publisher: Toronto, Ontario :, Anchor Canada,, 2010
ISBN: 9780385672665
0385672667
Characteristics: 1 online resource

## Opinion

### Community Activity

#### Quotes

Nov 25, 2016

Hopeless to select best quotes because of the vast variety of interests. Here is a small sample:
Indian mathematicians have a self-deprecating joke: ‘India contributed zero to mathematics.’ The joke plays on the unnatural language of zero. Contributing ‘zero’ is not the same as contributing zero: ‘zero’ is something! This joke is also the basis of a simpler approach to the logic of numbers. Take Zero to be the empty set, the set containing nothing. Then One is the set containing just one thing: namely Zero. Then, Zero and One give two things…
===
That NOT (NOT A) is the same as A also requires this peculiar precision. Alan Turing suggested explaining it by saying, ‘It’s like crossing the road. You cross it, and then you cross it again, and you’re back where you started.’ But in real life, we often can’t get no such logical satisfaction. Two wrongs make no rights, ...

Nov 25, 2016

Tie a pair of shoes to each other with (suitably long) shoe-laces. Now rotate one shoe completely round, so that the laces get twisted too. Rotate again, in the same direction, so the laces are doubly twisted. You will find that you can untwist the laces by passing the shoe between them, without rotating it at all. Only a double rotation can be undone like this.
===
Explain why a mirror exchanges right and left, but not up and down.
===
It is a weak but also a profoundly weird force, with an extraordinary property: it is asymmetric. The weak force knows left from right just as definitely as does a helix of DNA. This was only shown unequivocally by Chien-Shiung Wu in 1956. Her experiment, though it has never become a popular icon of science, marks a major step in the understanding of space and its Two-ness.

Nov 25, 2016

The first rule is unsurprising, but the second is highly unobvious: (a, b) + (c, d) = (a + c, b + d) (a, b) × (c, d) = (a × c − b × d, a × d + b × c). The natural numbers 1, 2, 3 … can be identified with the pairs (1, 0), (2, 0), (3, 0) … and for these, the new addition and multiplication coincides with what we had before. The same goes for the fractions and decimals: 1/2 is (1/2, 0) and π is (π, 0). It goes for negative numbers too: so (−1, 0) is the same as −1. But something new happens when the second element in the pair is used. Following the rules, (0, 1) × (0, 1) = (−1, 0). The pair (0, 1) behaves as a square root of minus one.
===

The K for a thousand, the third power of ten, is convenient because it is close to 1024, the tenth power of two. Less obvious is that the approximation 1024 ≈ 1000 is related to the problem of music, and this gives a starting point for both the harmonies and the cussedness of numbers.

Nov 25, 2016

In practice, people do co-operate in many ways, despite the lack of individual benefit. ... But co-operation is fragile, as gun control and gang revenge questions indicate.
===
The same applies to another famous problem Poincaré attacked, also featuring the number Three. This is the three-body uproblem.
===
… it is difficult to recover the excitement of the seventeenth century, when the solar system became the test-bed for mathematical prediction. The periodic return of Halley’s comet, whose successful prediction was one great early achievement, is a reminder of that original drama of the skies.
===
Electric force becomes stronger and stronger as two charges approach. Colour force is the other way round. It acts like a spring, becoming stronger as two colour charges separate, and diminishing to nothing as they approach.

Nov 25, 2016

It brings together the most abstract mathematics and the most sophisticated high-energy experiments. Fortunately, mathematics comes particularly cheap.
===
Everyone knows that two and two make four. Not everyone sees that two and two make four in several different ways: 2 + 2 = 4, 2 × 2 = 4, 2^2 = 4. In short, four is the square of two. Musically, a beat of four, in two twos, gives common time. This rhythm is the first to have an internal structure, a double duality, a micro-drama to every bar. Hidden under the surface, this beat will be found in the numbers. Squares are special. The periodic table of the chemical elements shows that the elements are built up from certain magic numbers: 2, 8, 18, 32. These numbers all come from squares: 2 × 1, 2 × 4, 2 × 9, 2 × 16, although the usual layout of the table fails to make this plain.

Nov 25, 2016

It is common to applaud ‘win-win situations’ which arise from games which are not zero-sum. Unfortunately, turning now from optimism to pessimism, they can also be lose-lose situations. If you are a billionaire, you can probably make the rules to suit yourself, but those on the receiving end may be faced with less convenient constraints. The classic example is that of ‘prisoner’s dilemma’, a situation which could well be imagined in a Caribbean setting. Suppose two captured prisoners are interrogated separately. Both have a choice: to inform against the other, or not. They are both best off if both refuse to inform. But the direst outcome for a prisoner is when, having refused to inform, he finds himself incriminated by the other. The only way to avoid this worst scenario is to inform; the same logic applies to both and so both will incriminate each other. Neither can choose the strategy that would be to their collective advantage.

#### Comment

Nov 25, 2016

Decided to read this book which often referenced the two main characters Ramanujan and Hardy in the excellent book/movie "The Man Who Knew Infinity - A Life of the Genius Ramanujan By Kanigel, Robert." As it turns out, the esteemed mathematician writer also authored "Alan Turing The Enigma : the Book That Inspired the Film The Imitation Game 2014." And similarly, it is a difficult book to read for those without a few college level math courses. However, it was full of grand information on how math related to our life, from computers, cell phones, quantum mechanics, string theory, music, climate change ... to logic in general. It is hard to pick memorable quotes as there were so much good stuff, some over my head but plan to explore further. Managed to list a few less difficult passages in "Quotes." Bonus is that, at the end of the book, readers were pointed to Hodges' website with solutions to some of the mind bending exercises posted in between chapters. See link in "Summary."

#### Summary

Nov 25, 2016

http://www.cryptographic.co.uk/onetonine/

An example which is not too hard to understand/follow:

75025 and 46368 give an example of where the Euclidean algorithm makes the slowest progress, because they are Fibonacci numbers. The quotients are always 1 so the reduction is very slow.

75025 = 1 × 46368 + 28657 reducing to (46368, 28657)
46368 = 1 × 28657 + 17711 reducing to (28657, 17711)
28657 = 1 × 17711 + 10946 reducing to (17711, 10946)
...and so on through all the Fibonacci numbers to
13 = 1 × 8 + 5 reducing to (8, 5)
8 = 1 × 5 + 3 reducing to (5, 3)
5 = 1 × 3 + 2 reducing to (3, 2)
3 = 1 × 2 + 1 reducing to (2, 1).

#### Age Suitability

There are no age suitabilities for this title yet.

#### Notices

There are no notices for this title yet.