Mathematics and Sex [Paperback]

Clio Cresswell (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: September 1, 2004

Mathematics and sex may make odd bedfellows, but this fun, flirty look at the relationship between the two subjects shows that they are closely related. Revealing the ways in which math can help unlock the secrets of love, lust, and life's search for the ideal partner, this intriguing text covers topics such as dating services, dating as game theory, the mathematical logic of affairs, and the numbers behind orgasms. Math's answers to love's burning questions How much should one compromise in a relationship? Exactly what is it that is attractive in a lover? How many partners should one have before settling down? and What makes the infamous biological clock tick? are also revealed.

Editorial Reviews

About the Author

Clio Cresswell is a mathematician, writer, and media personality. She is a visiting fellow at the school of mathematics at the University of New South Wales, Australia.

Product Details

• Paperback: 192 pages
• Publisher: Allen & Unwin (September 1, 2004)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1741141591
• ISBN-13: 978-1741141597
• Product Dimensions: 8.3 x 5.5 x 0.4 inches
• Shipping Weight: 8.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (10 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,213,266 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

45 of 48 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Lighthearted, but light and inconsistent, May 5, 2005

By 

M. Hyman "Artist at large" (Seattle, WA USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Mathematics and Sex (Paperback)

I bought this book because of an earlier review that complained about no explanation of the formulae. I was hoping that what that really meant is that it was filled with good math and was in depth. Unfortunately, it isn't.

There are some of the chapters that I found very interesting, such as the chapter on attraction cycles. There are other chapters that were really just fluff. Some quick references to some research, and some silly insinuations about the author's bar hopping experiences or lack thereof.

I liked that the book took a number of concepts and translated them to references to mathematics papers.

I disliked that there was not enough math. Formulas are presented without defining any of the terms. So you might be told that an attraction cycle is represented by f(x)= R(x) + a*B(x). But there is no definition of the R function, how the a constant is derived, or the B function. Nor is there a discussion, usually, of the research that went on to define the function and alternatives examined. The book would benefit very much from going into a full definition of the functions, even if it were in an appendix. Instead, you get a little bit of a tease but not enough information to understand.

Likewise, there are cases where the mathematical focus would benefit from a discussion of computer science or engineering techniques. For example, the author describes the complexity of how a dating service might perform similarity matches. She readily admits that she doesn't know what they actually do, so conjectures, makes some references to multidimensional analysis, and more or less leaves it at that. Such a chapter would benefit from a discussion of Bayesian networks, cluster analysis, or other techniques that are common in the computer world as ways to deal with the particular issue.

Although I have not yet finished reading the book, I find that I am starting to skim, which is never a great sign. I'm getting the feeling that the author dug into a few of the topics, but then added a number of chapters to flesh out the table of contents. I will finish the book, but I'm finding that I'm much more interested in the next book on my list. (The Machine That Changed The World)

19 of 19 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars On the whole an informative book, March 8, 2005

By 

Lohit S. Dutta "lohit" (Muenchen Deutschland) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Mathematics and Sex (Paperback)

Yes, I agree with the previous reviewers that this book is an informative light hearted romp through the world of mathematical
modelling of one of biology's most important topics: sex. But, I am giving this book only 3 stars since I find it very irritating to be fed with mathematical equations where no attempt has ever been made to explain the various variables or even a rudimentary explanation. This is just plain show and very very detracting!

19 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Some Quick Math for Potential Buyers, May 12, 2006

By 

Coal Whitewater "Coal Whitewater" (NY, NY) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Mathematics and Sex (Paperback)

Here is some math for customers considering this book. There are 7 reviews preceeding mine. 5 are right. 2 are wrong.
The reviews that are right have noticed that the book contains no math. The reviews that are wrong have noticed that the book is vaguely about sex. Actually it's not. It's about the difficulty difficulty some academics have in starting a sentence and completing it on the same topic.
The trouble with invoking applied mathematics is that you have to support what you're saying. Therefore when offering an equation or formula you traditionally state what the variables stand for.
I assume that the author has this information but finds it difficult to restate in common English. Almost every topic is concluded in this drift: "Well it would be much too time consuming to explain what this formula means but isn't it nice to know that it exists?"
No. I mean it would be, but we don't know that the formula does exist (hapless readers that we are). To convince us, you have to explain it. Explain: which means state clearly and describe how it works.
Here's an example, misanthropically quoted by MSN this morning.
If you are looking for a mate for life the correct formula is to
go out with 12 people and then choose the next best one after that, which seems to mean better than number 11 but not necessarily as good as number 12. Yes, just ducky, but why is that true?: Sorry, explanation time is over. Exam will be at the sports bar on Saturday night. Don't blow it.
Now look: does this "formula" stand up on its own two feet or is it also drunk and falling off its barstool? Does it still count if all 12 of them dumped YOU? Suppose they were all alcoholics, or verbally abusive? Suppose your relationship with each lasted only three days? Suppose, less dramatically, that following the normal psychological model, you simply picked the same "type" every time? Do you actually have enough information to proceed or should you still see a lawyer about pre-nups. And why 12? Why not 30 or the square root of 17?
Perhaps the author was afraid that if she actually explained herself clearly her readers would spend so much time working out the fractals between margaritas that they'd never go home with anyone. She should ease her mind and write the book correctly. No one is going to take her conclusions to the field. The subject is interesting as theory. And it is interesting. I just wish the author had taken advantage of the fact.