PUP congratulates writers chosen for The Best Writing on Mathematics 2015

Highlighting the finest articles published throughout the entire year, The Best Writing on Mathematics 2015 shines the spotlight on math’s brightest, most creative minds. Edited by Mircea Pitici, the volume is inviting to experienced mathematicians and numbers novices alike.

The Best Writing on Mathematics, in its sixth edition, offers surprising and meaningful insights and perspectives into the highly influential world of mathematics. Colm Mulcahy and Dana Richards express their appreciation and reflections of the significant work of icon Martin Gardner, Toby Walsh creatively uses the popular game Candy Crush as a vehicle to analyze the hardships of solving computational problems, Benoît Rittaud and Albrecht Heeffer investigate and question the true derivation of the pigeonhole principle, Carlo Cellucci considers and defines beauty in mathematics — and that’s just the beginning.

Best Writing on Math 2015

Congratulations to those chosen to be included in The Best Writing in Mathematics 2015!

Interpreting mathematics is not about mathematical truth (or any other truth); it is a personal take on mathematical facts, and in that it can be true or untrue, or it can even be fiction; it is vision, or it is rigorous reasoning, or it is pure speculation, all occasioned by mathematics; it is imagination on a mathematical theme; it goes back several millennia and it is flourishing today, as I hope this series of books lays clear, (xiii)

— Mircea Pitici, Editor

 


Articles and authors selected in The Best Writing on Mathematics 2015

Articles Authors
A Dusty Discipline Michael J. Barany and Donald MacKenzie
How Puzzles Made Us Human Pradeep Mutalik
Let the Games Continue Colm Mulcahy and Dana Richards
Challenging Magic Squares for Magicians Arthur T. Benjamin and Ethan J. Brown
Candy Crush’s Puzzling Mathematics Toby Walsh
Chaos on the Billiard Table Marianne Freiberger
Juggling with Numbers Erik R. Tou
The Quest for Randomness Scott Aaronson
Synthetic Biology, Real Mathematics Dana Mackenzie
At the Far Ends of a New Universal Law Natalie Wolchover
Twisted Math and Beautiful Geometry Eli Maor and Eugen Jost
Kenichi Miura’s Water Wheel, or The Dance of the Shapes of Constant Width Burkard Polster
Dürer: Disguise, Distance, Disagreements, and Diagonals! Annalisa Crannell, Marc Frantz, and Fumiko Futamura
The Quaternion Group as a Symmetry Group Vi Hart and Henry Segerman
The Steiner-Lehmus Angle Bisector Theorem John Conway and Alex Ryba
Key Ideas and Memorability in Proof Gila Hanna and John Mason
The Future of High School Mathematics Jim Fey, Sol Garfunkel, Diane Briars, Andy Isaacs, Henry Pollak, Eric Robinson, Richard Scheaffer, Alan Schoenfeld, Cathy Seeley, Dan Teague, and Zalman Usiskin
Demystifying the Math Myth: Analyzing the Contributing Factors for the Achievement Gap between Chinese and U.S. Students Guili Zhang and Miguel A. Padilla
The Pigeonhole Principle, Two Centuries before Dirichlet Benoît Rittaud and Albrecht Heeffer
A Prehistory of Nim Lisa Rougetet
Gödel, Gentzen, Goodstein: The Magic Sound of a G-String Jan von Plato
Global and Local James Franklin
Mathematical Beauty, Understanding, and Discovery Carlo Cellucci
A Guide for the Perplexed: What Mathematicians Need to Know to Understand Philosophers of Mathematics Mark Balaguer
Writing about Math for the Perplexed and the Traumatized Steven Strogatz
Is Big Data Enough? A Reflection on the Changing Role of Mathematics in Applications Domenico Napoletani, Marco Panza, and Daniele C. Struppa
The Statistical Crisis in Science Andrew Gelman and Eric Loken
Statistics and the Ontario Lottery Retailer Scandal Jeffrey S. Rosenthal
Never Say Never David J. Hand

Mircea Pitici holds a PhD in mathematics education from Cornell University, where he teaches math and writing. He has edited The Best Writing on Mathematics since 2010.

Princeton University Press Books Dominate on Popular Reading Lists!

If you’re looking for the perfect book to compliment your vacation or leisure time, here are some standouts to check out.

Roy Christopher‘s Summer Reading List featured four Princeton University Press books including: Michael Nelson‘s Reinventing Discovery, Lisa McGirr‘s Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right, Jürgen Osterhammel‘s The Transformation of the World: A Global History of the Nineteenth Century, and Steven F. Railsback and Volker Grimm‘s Agent-Based and Individual-Based Modeling: A Practical Introduction.

Nielson jacket McGirr Jacket
 Osterhammel Jacket  Grimm Jacket

Check out Roy Christopher’s entire Summer Reading List 2015 here.

Award-winning journalist Frann Briggs also released a list, The Best of Spring Reading 2015 Part 1, featuring Princeton University Press publication Create Dangerously: The Immigrant Artist at Work by Edwidge Danticat.

Danticat Jacket

Explore the list in its entirety here.

 

 

March Mathness 2015: The Wrap Up

balls

The champion has been crowned! After an eventful and surprising March Madness tournament, Duke has been named the new NCAA national champion.

A year of bragging rights goes to PUP paperbacks manager Larissa Skurka (98.6 percent) and PUP executive math and computer science editor Vickie Kearn (98.4 percent), who took first and second place in our ESPN bracket pool. Congrats to both! Check out all of the results here.

As we wrap up March Mathness, here are two final guest posts from basketball fans who used math and Tim Chartier‘s methods to create their brackets.

 Swearing by Bracketology

By Jeff Smith

My name is Jeff Smith, and I’ve been using Tim Chartier’s math algorithms to help with my March Madness brackets for several years now. I met Tim when we were traveling the ‘circuit’ together in creative ministries training. You may only know Tim for his math prowess, but I knew him for his creativity before I knew he was a brilliant mathematician. He and his wife, Tanya, are professional mimes, and his creativity is genius too.

Several years ago, he mentioned his method for picking brackets at a conference where we were doing some training together. He promised to send me the home page for his site and I could fill out my brackets using his parameters and formula. I was excited to give it a shot. Mainly, because I am part of a men’s group at our church that participates in March Madness brackets every year. Bragging rights are a big deal…for the whole year. You get the picture.

Also, I have two boys who did get one of my genes: the competitive edge. I sat down and explained the process. Because they did not know Tim, they were a little more skeptical, but I promised it wouldn’t hurt to try. That year, in a pool of 40+ guys, we all finished in the top ten. We were all hooked!

Since then, I have contacted Tim each year and reminded him to send me the link to his site where I could put in our numbers to fill out our brackets. Generally, the three of us each incorporate different parameters because we have different philosophies about the process. It has become a family event, where we sit around the dinner table; almost ceremonially, and we take our output and place them in the brackets. The submission is generally preceded by trash talking, prayer, and fasting. (Well, probably not the fasting, because we fill up with nachos and chips during the process.)

Jeff post

Men of March Mathness: Jeff, Samuel, Ben Smith.

This year, I was in South Africa on a mission trip during the annual ritual. Thank God for video chatting and internet access. Halfway across the world, we were still able to be together and place our brackets into the pool. It was such a wonderful experience. While my boys veered from the path, picking intuitively instead of statistically, I didn’t stray far. (I was strong!) If it wouldn’t have been for Villanova, whom I will never choose again in a bracket, I would be leading the pack. But, I’m still in the top ten of the men’s bracket at my church, with an outside shot of winning. In the Princeton bracket, I’m doing even better because I stayed away from the guessing game a little more.

I do not follow college basketball during the season. I’m from central Pennsylvania, and Penn State doesn’t have a good basketball team. So, I have no passion for the basketball season. Periodically, I’ll watch a game because my boys are watching, but generally, basketball season is the long wait until baseball season. (Go Pirates!) So, March Mathness has saved my reputation. It makes me look like a genius. Other guys in the group are looking at my bracket for answers. My boys and I are sworn to secrecy about the formula. The only reason I write this is because I’m sure none of them read this blog! But I’m thankful for Tim and the formula and the chance to look good in front of friends. I have never won the pool, however, if you factor my finishes over the course of the years I have been using Tim’s formula, I have the best average of all the guys.

 

 What Do Coaches Have to Do with It?

By Stephen Gorman, College of Charleston student

PUPSelfie2

It’s that time of year again. The time of year when everyone compares brackets to see who did the best. But if your bracket was busted early, don’t worry — you’re not the only one. In fact, nobody came out of the tournament with a perfect bracket.

The unpredictability of these games is an inescapable fact of March Madness. This tournament is so incredibly unpredictable that some people are willing to give out billions to anyone who can create a perfect bracket; Warren Buffett is one of these people. So is he crazy? Or does he realize your odds of creating a perfect bracket are 52 billion times worse than winning the Powerball. In layman’s terms – if you think playing the lottery is crazy, trying to create the perfect bracket is insane.

However, once you can accept the statistics, predicting March Madness becomes a game of bettering you’re odds – and there are many predictive models that can help you out along the way. Some of these models include rating methods, like the Massey method, which takes into account score differentials and strength of schedule. In addition to this, there are weighting methods that can be applied to rating methods; these take into account the significance of particular games and even individual player statistics. However, I noticed there is one thing missing from these predictive models: a method that quantifies the value of a good coach. In order to take into account the importance of a coach, a fellow researcher (John Sussingham) and I decided to create our own rating system for coaches.

Using data available from SportsReference.com, we made a system of rating that incorporated such factors as the coach’s career win percentage, March Madness appearances, and the record of success in March Madness. But before we implemented it, we wanted to justify that it was, indeed, a good way to quantify the strength of a coach. In order to do this, we tested the coach ratings in two ways. The first way being a comparison between how sports writers ranked the top 10 College Basketball coaches of all time and what our coach ratings said were the best coaches of all time. The second way was to test how the coach ratings did by themselves at predicting March Madness.

The comparison of the rankings are shown in the table below:

Rank Our Results CBS Sports Results Bleacher Report Results
1 John Wooden John Wooden John Wooden
2 Mike Krzyzewski Mike Krzyzewski Bobby Knight
3 Adolph Rupp Bob Knight Mike Krzyzewski
4 Jim Boeheim Dean Smith Adolph Rupp
5 Dean Smith Adolph Rupp Dean Smith
6 Roy Williams Henry Iba Jim Calhoun
7 Jerry Tarkanian Phog Allen Jim Boeheim
8 Al McGuire Jim Calhoun Lute Olson
9 Bill Self John Thompson Eddie Sutton
10 Jamie Dixon Jim Boeheim Jim Phelan

It is clear from the table above that there are striking similarities between all three rankings. This concluded our first test.

For the second test, we decided to use the coach ratings to predict the last fourteen years of March Madness. The results showed that over the last fourteen years, on average, coach ratings had 68.4 precent prediction accuracy and an ESPN bracket score of 946. As a comparison, the uniform (un-weighted) Massey method of rating (over the same timespan) had an average prediction accuracy of 65.2 precent and an average ESPN bracket score of 1006. Having a higher prediction accuracy, but lower ESPN bracket score essentially means that you have predicted more games correctly in the beginning of the tournament, but struggle in the later rounds. This comes to show that not only are these ratings good at predicting March Madness, but they stand their ground when compared to the effectiveness of very popular methods of rating.

To conclude this article, we decided that, this year, we would combine both the Massey ratings and our Coach ratings to make a bracket for March Madness. Over the last fourteen years, the combination-rating had an average prediction accuracy of 66.33 percent and an average ESPN bracket score of 1024. It’s interesting to note that while the prediction accuracy went down from just using the Coach ratings, the ESPN bracket score went up significantly. Even more interestingly, both the prediction accuracy and the ESPN Bracket score were better than uniform Massey.

This year, the combination-ratings had three out of the four Final Four teams correctly predicted with Kentucky beating Duke in the Championship. However, the undefeated Kentucky lost to Wisconsin in the Final Four. Despite this, the combination-ratings bracket still did well, finishing in the 87.6th percentile on ESPN.