**The Hidden Stories Behind Numbers: A Worldwide Perspective on Mathematical Errors**
When a publication sets out to “revisit” the journey of mathematics through an audacious and global lens, aiming to bridge gaps and honor overlooked figures, expectations for an enlightening exploration inevitably arise. This is the implication of *The Hidden Stories Behind Numbers: A Worldwide Perspective on Mathematics & Its Unsung Innovators* by Kate Kitagawa and Timothy Revell—a release from Penguin, no less. Renowned for its legacy of notable and meticulously researched non-fiction, Penguin bestows a sense of validity upon this work. However, a detailed examination of the initial sections of the text reveals that what Kitagawa and Revell have crafted is far from revolutionary or precise. This ambitious endeavor is marred by a series of pitfalls, inaccuracies, and lost chances that significantly undermine its reliability.
### The Introduction: Rectifying a History of Mistakes?
The writers assert that the narrative of mathematics, akin to the notorious Mercator projection in mapping, suffers from “biases amassed over millennia.” Their stated goal seems to be to confront Eurocentric tales and highlight contributions from various cultures, often relegated to the category of “ethnomathematics.” While the intent seems commendable and essential, the amateurish handling ultimately detracts from this idea.
Right from the beginning, the tone aims for a blend of excitement and lofty seriousness. However, broad assertions like “mathematics… is a far more chaotic affair” swiftly expose a lack of profound engagement with the subject matter. Mathematics historians have long recognized the non-linear and fragmented evolution of mathematical concepts, thoroughly documenting inputs from non-European civilizations. Boyer’s *A History of Mathematics*, published as early as the 1960s, has already addressed various non-European traditions, rendering the suggestion that historians have bypassed non-Western contributions rather disingenuous.
### Disarray in the Initial Chapters
#### The Mesopotamians and Egyptians
The approach to ancient mathematics falls into mediocrity right away. The authors’ narrative of Babylonian mathematics barely scratches the surface, omitting its significant sophistication in algebra and algorithms. The dubious claim that the Babylonians “discovered” the Pythagorean Theorem is both careless and inaccurate. Historically, scholars acknowledge Babylonian awareness of Pythagorean triples, yet whether they generalized the theorem remains unclear. Most troubling, they assert that the Babylonians “had no zero,” entirely overlooking the placeholder zero they employed by 300 BCE and the existing scholarship surrounding this issue.
Egypt fares even worse, receiving a cursory two-page overview that trivializes their accomplishments in comparison. Such treatment is not just insufficient but contradicts academic rigor, as much of what we understand about early arithmetic owes much to Egyptian techniques (as noted in the *Rhind* and *Moscow Mathematical Papyri*).
#### China: Myths, Hexagrams, and Numerous Errors
The portion on Chinese mathematics appears more as a haphazard effort to meet inclusion criteria than a genuine exploration of its depth. While a decent summary of rod numerals and their decimal place-value system is presented, the authors stumble on several critical aspects. For example, they propagate the unfounded notion that Yu the Great—a figure more legendary than historical—identified a magic square on a turtle shell, an origin story for Chinese numerology. Instead of highlighting the much later documented instances of magic squares (with no verifiable connection to Yu), the myth is introduced uncritically, misleading readers.
Additionally, the narrative surrounding the *I Ching* or *Book of Changes* is comically mishandled. The divination method involving yarrow stalks is inaccurately depicted as “throwing them into the air,” when the actual practice is a detailed, thoughtful, ritual process. Such oversight isn’t merely a blunder; it underscores a lack of serious engagement with the subject matter.
Liu Xin, known for the *Triple Concordance Calendar*, is repeatedly misrepresented in the timeline. The authors claim that Jesuit missionaries influenced cross-cultural interactions in Liu Xin’s timeframe, over fifteen centuries before such missions occurred! This glaring historical inaccuracy further diminishes the book’s credibility.
### Alexandria: A Missed Chance
When the discussion turns to the Greek mathematical heritage, Alexandria receives some focus, yet it primarily rehashes familiar discussions about Euclid and Hypatia. Hypatia, a Neoplatonist philosopher, is praised romantically but incorrectly as a mathematician. A simple online search would clarify her standing as a philosopher first, with mathematics as a component of her broader intellectual pursuits. Authors often feel the urge to dramatize Hypatia’s tragic end, but this could have been balanced with an accurate context regarding her central intellectual contributions.