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.
| ||||||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Editorial Reviews
Review
"Thought-provoking, unexpected and…fun." -- Salon.com
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
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
48 of 51 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
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)
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)
20 of 20 people found the following review helpful
Format: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!
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!
23 of 25 people found the following review helpful
Format: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.
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.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
excellent math text
I took time to write the very attractive and energetic professor, and told her in person how much we all enjoyed this text.... Read more
Published 1 month ago by Keating Willcox
3.0 out of 5 stars
Tries, falls just short.
Clio Cresswell, Mathematics and Sex (Allen and Unwin, 2004)
One doesn't usually think about the terms "mathematics" and "sex" going together. Read more
One doesn't usually think about the terms "mathematics" and "sex" going together. Read more
Published on December 13, 2006 by Robert P. Beveridge
5.0 out of 5 stars
How bunnies multiply
Good book. Never thought of the subject in that way before, however it was very interesting reading.
Published on November 9, 2006 by T. Schultz
4.0 out of 5 stars
Captivating subject, casual approach
I [heart] Ms. Cresswell's premise: relationships and sex are approachable through mathematics. However, her approach leaves me either wanting more mathematics or a more formal... Read more
Published on February 25, 2006 by Jesse Van Hiller
3.0 out of 5 stars
Doesn't quite work
How do you make maths sexy? Write a book about maths and sex! Trouble is, this book doesn't quite work. Read more
Published on November 22, 2005 by Bob Z
5.0 out of 5 stars
Good because it leaves out the math
I don't know why people are complaining about no math in this book. All the topics are well referenced at the back. Read more
Published on October 9, 2005 by Michael Wise
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Wonderful View of Applied Mathematics
How can a book with a title like this not attract your attention? Why thig might even be interesting enough to attract the attention of the most jaded high schooler. Read more
Published on October 15, 2004 by John Matlock
5.0 out of 5 stars
entertaining light hearted view of applied mathematics
Very much for the non-mathematician (there is nothing requiring any mathematical skill, just interest) this well written and entertaining book demonstrates the ability of... Read more
Published on September 26, 2004 by B. Stein
