Flatterland 42
Flatterland: Like Flatland Only More So | |
author | Ian Stewart |
pages | 294 |
publisher | Perseus Publishing |
rating | 8 |
reviewer | James Howard |
ISBN | 0-7382-0442-0 |
summary | A one dimensional line living in a two dimensional world issuddenly thrust into three dimensional space, fractal worlds,and hyperbolicplanes. |
Flatterland begins one hundred years after Flatland's end. A. Square's great-great-granddaughter, Victoria Line has found A. Square's ancient text, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions. After causing some trouble with her family, Victoria reads the text and signals the third dimension. She is soon greeted by the Space Hopper, who soon teaches her about three and dimensions, fractal space, perspective, hyperbolic space, topology, time travel, wormholes, and everything else relating to geometry.
Flatland was written to warm the public up to a more complex space than the three dimensions they normally perceived. Shortly after the start of the new century, Albert Einstein proved the relationship between time and space adding a forth dimension. Flatterland is not written the same way. Rather than warming the reader up to physical possibilities, Mr. Stewart pedanticly explains the Universe as it is known today. In those areas where science has no answer, Flatterland simply says there is none and offers several possible answers.
Mr. Stewart went to great lengths to demonstrate Victoria's naivity. All names from the book are spelled as one part and even names are combined. Albert Einstein becomes Albereinstein and Felix Klein becomes Felixklien. Even planet Earth becomes Planiturth whose inhabitants are Planiturthians. First cute, by the end of the book, the nomenclature becomes dreadful and deciphering names can be difficult when the original is unknown to the reader.
Missing most from Flatterland, though, is the social satire. Flatland endlessly mocks Victorian society. The role of women was questioned along with evolutionary theories. Flatland was more of a social satire than it was a text on geometry. Flatterland's social satire is weak and confused. In Mr. Stewart's introduction, Flatland has evolved into a sixties-like era, but modern technology from the nineties has also arrived. What little social criticism there is in Flatterland addresses the women's movement. Unfortunately, the style and discourse would have been more appropriate forty years ago.
These flaws aside, Flatterland's discussion of mathematics and science is amazing. The simplicity of the breadth of material makes Flatterland helpful aid in study. The personification of mathematical concepts includes a five-sided figure with five ninety degree angles from the hyperbolic plane called a squarrel. Viewed from inside the hyperbolic plane, Victoria is confused to see a creature with the wrong measure of angles for five sides until the Space Hopper patiently explains. The personification also includes a cow whose tail flips and joins its nose named Moobius. Victoria takes to washing one side of Moobius only to discover that Moobius has only one side.
Through the Space Hopper, Mr. Stewart explains complex mathematical concepts with explicit detail but very simply and often several times from several angles to ensure the reader understands the topic. Additionally, the book includes ample diagrams from simple grapefruit stacking problems to visions of wormholes. The images are most helpful when discussing perspective.
Ideally, Flatterland would embody the mathematics, science, satire, creativity of Flatland. However, Flatterland usually sacrifices satire and creativity for science and mathematics. The book is still an exceptional read and well worth the time. It does not tarnish the reputation of Flatland, but it is not destined to become the classic that its predecessor is."
You can purchase this book at Fatbrain.
Re:Nits too big to ignore (Score:1)
Nothing is "wrong" here, you're just confusing a metaphor with the actuality. The metaphor breaks down when you realize that you cannot extricate the time dimension from such an explanation - NO explanation in human terms can omit the time dimension.
Of course it is meaningless to say one "travels" along the time dimension, because "to travel" implies a rate of change w.r.t. time. But true space-time geometry does not use this concept. Only the lame explanations do.
Let go of your conception of time, if you want to understand time as a dimension. That's the challenge. It's too easy to say "this is all bollocks".
Lillian Lieber (Score:2)
If you are interested in this sort of stuff, look for books by Lillian Lieber. She wrote:
I really loved her books as a kid and I find that they still hold up today. Mrs. Lieber, wherever you are today, thank you!
OpenSourcerers [opensourcerers.com]
Another book (Score:2)
Re:Nits too big to ignore (Score:1)
Grammar: The comma is optional.
Spelling: The spelling is correct.
Re:Repeat (Score:1)
Re:"Simple" grapefruit stacking problem? (Score:1)
Re:Nits too big to ignore (Score:2)
And also see: (Score:2)
Charles H. Hinton's "An Episode of Flatland [mediaone.net]"
Re:Nits too big to ignore (Score:1)
When used in the context of science (as opposed to math), the verb "to prove" has a very loose meaning. It can even mean "to suggest" or "to imply". And while SR doesn't have all the wacky geometry of GR, even SR is easier to understand if you think of time as being as flexible as the other dimensions. Thus Einstein 1905 "proves" (as abhorrant as that usage may be) that time is a dimension.
So cut 'im some slack. "Prove" was raped and murdered a long time ago, and the body was cold long before James got there.
---
Mr Stewart? (Score:1)
Re:Mr Stewart? (Score:2)
Re:Classicly classic? (Score:1)
Link to the full text of the orig. (Score:1)
One [mediaone.net]
Two [sunet.se]
Three [upenn.edu]
Four [upenn.edu]
The last two seem to have links to other download sites. Courtesy of ipl [ipl.org]. BTW, the review above really stinks.
-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
Re:Nits too big to ignore (Score:2)
While this might be reassuring to determinists, it's also plain wrong. If we are moving through the loaf of bread, experiencing once slice at a time, then time is not a dimension of the bread, because time is still external to the bread (and you looking at the bread). I'll leave it as an excercise to the reader to determine *what*, in this metaphor, is supposed to be moving through the bread.
Think about it. And please stop that "time is the fourth dimension" thing.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Flatland is social sattire (Score:3)
For more Flatland antics... (Score:3)
Well, long post short, just buy all his books.
The Planiverse (Score:2)
Nits too big to ignore (Score:3)
If the reviewer is referring to Einstein's "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" paper of 1905, that one has no references to geometry at all. It was Minkowski's 1907 lecture entitled "Time and space" that showed that considering time (as clarified by Einstein's formulation) to be a fourth coordinate axis simplifies and unifies many calculations greatly. But it did not prove the relationship--you can't prove a relationship.
You could make a case that the reviewer is referring to Einstein's 1915 "Foundations of general relativity" paper, since that one does make an advance in geometry by constructing what is now known as the Einstein tensor. But though it's solidly grounded in geometry, the true impact of that paper is Einstein's demonstration of the significance of that tensor in physics.
However you cut it, nothing in that sentence holds up.
Re:Interesting... (Score:1)
Every attempt to do so that I have seen has been really shitty. The original story was creative and entertaining, if a little dated.
People should try to write works inspired by their own imagination, instead of sponging off the populatity of a more creative mind.
Re:Can't say I agree with you completely... (Score:2)
It was creative when it was done in Flatland. When Ian Stewart did it, it was not.
If I were to write a "sequel" to The Screwtape Letters, would I be praised for my creativity in my decision to write ironic satire from the perspective of a demon? Only by rubes who did not read Lewis's original stories first.
Re:Theological Commentary (Score:2)
It looks as though somebody moderated the comment down as "off-topic" as a knee-jerk reaction. "It mentions religion, so he must be... uh... trolling... or something."
I liked the AC's comment so much, that I am posting here with my +1 Bonus to call attention to it. If you do not see it, click on "parent" at the bottom of this post.
(Should the parent be moderated up to 2 or higher, I suppose this comment should be marked down as "redundant".)
The Planiverse is still available (Score:1)
Actually, Chapters.ca [chapters.ca] (if you're in Canada) and Amazon.com [amazon.com] (if you're elsewhere) both list Planiverse as "usually shipping in 24 hours".
I did see a copy of it on the shelf at the local Chapters, so it seems to still be available.
Re:Can't say I agree with you completely... (Score:1)
Perhaps I phrased that badly. The original idea wasn't Stewart's creation, but the story and character usage were. There isn't a simple "translation" he could have done to automatically generate Flatterland from Flatland - writing the book required creativity.
Your idea to write satire from the perspective of a demon would not be considered "creative". If you wrote the book well and expressed new ideas using the characters having used Lewis's ideas as a starting point, then your work could be praised as "creative".
Way to proof read :S (Score:1)
Rather:
If you wrote the book well and expressed new ideas having used Lewis's ideas as a starting point, then your work could be praised as "creative".
Can't say I agree with you completely... (Score:2)
I'd agree with basically the last part of the review - Flatterland is an excellent introduction to mathematical and cosmological ideas like multi-dimensional space, wormholes, the possibility of time travel, and string theory.
On the subject of creativity, I'd disagree. I would say that Flatterland is a creatively written book on physics. Perhaps not original in it's use of allegory, but to say that using "living" characters and story twists to successfully explain complex spatial concepts isn't creative, is selling Ian Stewart short.
Regarding social satire, the reviewer is right - there isn't any (or at least very little). But then, I didn't pick up Flatterland in the "social satire" section of the book store (if such a section exists); I picked it up in the "Mathematics" section (incidentally, Flatland was in the literature section). To critisize the book for poor social commentary seems to miss the point of the book entirely. Flatterland does claim to be a sequel to Flatland in that it's an expansion on the spacial ideas presented in the original book. At no point does it claim to also be a clever satire of modern society. Quite honestly, Flatterland gave me enough to think about - adding any significant amount of satire would only serve to clutter the book and confuse the reader.
See also: (Score:4)
Re:Nits too big to ignore (Score:2)
Flatland online (Score:5)
Isn't the topic intersting enough (Score:1)
"Mr. Stewart went to great lengths to demonstrate Victoria's naivity. All names from the book are spelled as one part and even names are combined. Albert Einstein becomes Albereinstein and Felix Klein becomes Felixklien. Even planet Earth becomes Planiturth whose inhabitants are Planiturthians. First cute, by the end of the book, the nomenclature becomes dreadful and deciphering names can be difficult when the original is unknown to the reader."
I got tired of it in this short para and can only imagine the plight of tthe poor readers. But as the review itself says we can ignore the bad and concentrate on the good.
Everything has a price you see.
What about The Planiverse? (Score:2)
Mathematician AK Dewdney published a book back in 1984 entitled "The Planiverse" which was a very entertaining, but thorough, examination of what 2D existence could be like. I think it's currently out of print, but is worth a look if one can find it. A further description is here [csd.uwo.ca].
Re:For more Flatland antics... (Score:1)
Re:C- for delivery, A for the summary (Score:1)
Albert Einstein proved
Nothing in science is "proved", science is the negating of existing theories and finding support for new ones. Another pet pieve of mine is Newton's Laws. These too are theories that have been negatated by such people as Einstein and Stephen Hawking.
Re:Mr Stewart? (Score:1)
I refuse to trust a book review... (Score:1)
Say what you like about Mr. Stewart's writing; my money says it beats the phuck out of yours.
S.T.
Wormholes weren't in my geometry book... (Score:1)
Flatland's Better (Score:1)
Re:Repeat (Score:1)
My .02,
Repeat (Score:2)
My .02,
Interesting... (Score:1)
Alice in Quantumland (Score:2)
Message found in copy of Flatland was poor (Score:2)
Re:For more Flatland antics... (Score:1)