Go to MathDept Main Page | Go to MissionCollege Main Page

This paper was written as an assignment for Ian Walton's Math G -Math for liberal Arts Students - at Mission College. If you use material from this paper, please acknowledge it.

To explore other such papers go to theMath G Projects Page.
 

This paper was submitted by Jeanette Turkus for her Spring 2000 Math G at Mission College.

If you use material from this paper, please acknowledge it.

Text Review

I chose to review the textbook " Mathematical Palette" by Statszow\Bradshaw. First of all I looked at the table of contents of both our text and the "Mathematical Palette". Our textbook has four more chapters than the "Mathematical Palette", plus the "Mathematical Palette" is smaller is size and weighs less. In fact, the "Mathematical Palette" has only 530 pages as compared to our textbook containing 900 pages. From this initial information alone, I can assume there is more math in our textbook, due to the extra 370 extra pages.

As far as topics available, from what I could tell the "Mathematical Palette" does not contain linear programming. I looked in the index-section of the "Mathematical Palette" and could not find linear programming there. From my point of view, I would do better without linear programming, but if it needs to remain as part of Math G , then the "Mathematical Palette" would not be as good a text book for Math G.

However, I noticed something else when looking at the index - sections. I found the "Mathematical Palette’s" index much harder to read than our book. Our text index-section includes large red letters for the reader to readily identify whatever letter-word they may be trying to locate. Whereas, the "Mathematical Palette" index has no such colored bold letter headings and the "Mathematical Palette’s" print size is much smaller. I found it much harder to locate what I was searching for in the "Mathematical Palette" index.

As far as an area of the "Mathematical Palette" explaining something worse than our textbook personally, I thought our book did a better job with its explanation of the Golden Ratio. Our textbook seemed more appropriate as a mathematics book, spending approximately one page discussing the division of the Golden Ratio, which did not approach as interestingly and clear as our text book. In contrast, the "Mathematical Palette" took over three pages to discuss the Golden Ratio. Even though, as an art student, I would rather spend more time on the Golden Ratio rather than linear programming, but this point of view is with Math G class in mind. (I realize we are talking math when we speak of the Golden Ratio).

In connection with the Golden Ratio, both textbooks included picture examples to convey how the Golden Ratio looked. In the " Mathematical Palette" there was displayed very plain, very simple illustrations, one of a human face broken down in segments of the Golden Ratio and another example of the Greek Parthenon . Not similar, our textbook included full color photographs to give examples of the golden ratio. One example was again the Greek Parthenon, but the actual structure in a photo. The other example was another work of art, a painting by the great Leonardo Di Vinci. I found it interesting that the text referring to art by its name, "Mathematical Palette," boasts about the artwork on its cover in the introduction, yet the "Mathematical Palette" paled compared to our text in the examples it used for the Golden Ratio.

However, an area that both books introduced me to was something new with regard to the golden ratio. That is that phi is the Greek symbol for the Golden Ratio. The "Palette" even gave help with its pronunciation ; fi. Also the symbol can be written : F (It seems like I would have been exposed to this information by now in presentations or research for reports, but not that I can remember)

An area that may be treated better in the "Mathematical Palette" than our text, was the subject of the counting number, zero. The "Mathematical Palette" went into more detail about zero and its history , such as it was developed before 870 AD. Both textbooks mentioned the fact that zero started as a place-holder, but our textbook barely got into it. On the other hand I felt the "Mathematical Palette" was remiss to mention that "early Egypt , Rome, and Greek civilizations understood the concept but had no symbol for it...there systems did not need zero" - without mentioning the fact that the Greeks rejected zero initially because it clashed with their beliefs. (As you mentioned in your lecture and I read about this in other books). Further, regarding the numerous ancient counting methods, the "Mathematical Palette" gratefully said it did not expect the reader to be an expert, just familiarize oneself. Whereas, our text went on and on about the many counting methods, giving the impression this was of great importance.

Both books have ‘pros and cons’ and in summary, I think our text is the better choice because: The index is clearer and supportive for a student to find information quickly. Also, quality color photographs that enhance a student’s interest and learning, such as recognizing an important work of art, as compared to boring crude illustrations for examples explaining a point such as the Golden Ratio. Finally, our textbook has more math, including the amazing linear programming for more advanced modes of thought. Therefore, our text has more to offer the student of maththan the "Mathematical Palette" which I would not choose because of all the reasons I have summarized.