# **An In-Depth Examination of *The Secret Life of Numbers*: A Global Chronicle of Mathematics & Its Overlooked Innovators**
## **Introduction**
*The Secret Life of Numbers* embarks on an ambitious and encompassing exploration of the worldwide history of mathematics, with the intent of shedding light on overlooked individuals and traditions. Nevertheless, as we navigate its content, it becomes evident that the book is plagued by inaccuracies, anachronisms, and a disorganized structure that frequently obfuscates rather than elucidates mathematical historical developments. This review will unravel its primary shortcomings, scrutinizing historical inaccuracies, misinterpreted mathematical principles, and the flawed manner in which the authors represent the contributions of non-European and female mathematicians.
—
## **Inaccurate Historical Representations**
A central aim of the book is to transcend the Eurocentric perspective of mathematical history, appropriately acknowledging non-Western contributions. Although this is a laudable ambition, the implementation falls significantly short.
### **The Kerala School and Calculus**
The authors claim that the medieval Kerala School of mathematics, directed by Mādhava, was the genuine originator of calculus, a stance significantly influenced by George Gheverghese Joseph’s scholarship. While the Kerala School indeed made notable advancements in infinite series and trigonometry, the assertion that they “invented calculus” exceeds the bounds of historical verification. The European development of calculus by Newton and Leibniz synthesized various mathematical ideas into a clear, formal system, characterized by precise notation and widespread applicability to physics and mechanics—an accomplishment not achieved by Kerala mathematics.
### **Tycho & Sophia Brahe: A Fabricated Narrative**
The book depicts Tycho Brahe and his sister Sophia as coequals in his astronomical endeavors, a claim that is not sufficiently substantiated by historical evidence. While Sophia Brahe was certainly intelligent and engaged in scientific activities, notably in Paracelsian alchemy, there is scant proof that she significantly contributed to Tycho’s astronomical work. The authors seem to be reconstructing history to align with a contemporary narrative advocating gender equity in science, even when the factual basis is lacking.
### **Kepler’s Laws and Non-Euclidean Geometry**
The authors commit several errors while addressing Kepler’s discovery of elliptical planetary paths, incorrectly linking these orbits to ninth-century scholar Thābit ibn Qurra. There are no historical documents indicating that Thābit proposed non-circular planetary motion—had he done so, he would have been hailed as a groundbreaking figure well before Kepler. Furthermore, their assertion that Newton relied on calculus to formulate the *Principia* is inaccurate; his geometric methodologies were entirely adequate for articulating celestial mechanics.
#### **Misrepresenting the Progression of Non-Euclidean Geometry**
The treatment of non-Euclidean geometry unjustly minimizes the critical contributions of Girolamo Saccheri, who came close to discovering the concept but dismissed it as nonsensical. Instead, the book emphasizes later pioneers such as Gauss and Riemann, while superficially addressing the essential advancements made by Bolyai and Lobachevsky.
—
## **Inaccurate Examinations of Mathematical Principles**
In addition to misrepresenting history, the book fails to accurately depict fundamental mathematical concepts.
### **Newtonian Mechanics and the Shape of the Earth**
As part of their purported inclusivity, the authors characterize the debate regarding the Earth’s shape as an Anglo-French scientific rivalry rather than a legitimate mathematical and empirical inquiry. They misinterpret the methods of meridional measurements taken in Lapland and Ecuador, suggesting that astronomers merely “checked stars” rather than performing precise triangulations.
### **Noether’s Theorem: A Confused Interpretation**
The discussion surrounding Emmy Noether’s contributions is deeply muddled. Although Noether’s impact on abstract algebra is substantial, their narrative barely touches on this aspect and instead provides an imprecise outline of Noether’s theorem related to theoretical physics. Additionally, they wrongly assert that Hilbert and Klein “appointed” Noether at Göttingen—she initially worked without pay, and considerable effort was required to arrange even an unofficial teaching position for her.
### **Misunderstanding the Riemann Hypothesis and Gödel’s Incompleteness**
The authors casually invoke “undecidability” in mathematics while discussing the Riemann Hypothesis, erroneously conflating it with Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. While undecidable statements do exist within formal systems (as demonstrated by Gödel), it remains an open question whether the Riemann Hypothesis fits within that category. Such careless phrasing can mislead readers about the dynamics of contemporary mathematical logic.
—
## **An Imbalanced Approach to Gender and Diversity**
A considerable portion of the book focuses on illuminating the “hidden contributions” of women in mathematics. While recognizing female mathematicians is critical, the narrative shifts into revisionist history, exaggerating or distorting roles to align with a modern feminist framework rather than providing a truthful historical representation.
– **Émilie du Châtelet** and