The Princeton Companion to Mathematics [pdf]
sites.math.rutgers.edu
sites.math.rutgers.edu
It covers only pure mathematics. From the Preface:
"... it was suggested that a more accurate title would be "The Princeton Companion to Pure Mathematics": the only reason for rejecting this title was that it does not sound as good as the actual title."
As an aside, from time to time I try to cut the filename out of these kinds of urls and I'm delightedly nostalgic whenever I can browse the server, as it was so common some years ago; these were the kind of "secret powers" that attracted a lot of kids to learning about computers...
I can access though my university, but I'm limited to 100 pages per download, requiring 11 logins. Here, I just needed Acrobat to crop for an iPad, and to remove the four instances of "This page intentionally left blank".
First non-fiction book that I read cover to cover was a little book in college library called "the history of numbers" (If I remember it correctly). Somehow I really love when a chapter starts with historical overview of the subject. The seemingly "obvious" ideas have taken so many centuries to become "obvious" to everyone. I find it both scary -- how slow the truth propagates -- and humbling as well.
In my opinion, Stillwell’s book is better to read as a way to motivate a particular topic, whereas Struik’s book really tries to illustrate the arc of mathematics through history—of course, Struik’s approach has its limits.
History can motivate otherwise inscrutable or dry mathematics in a way that would probably interest many students. Why isn’t the history of math a serious part of secondary school? I don’t think US students remember that much of whatever we do teach there anyway.
[1]: https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Concise_History_of_Ma... or https://archive.org/details/concisehistoryof0000dirk
Teaching the history of math would tell the students what they don't know and would no doubt motivate many to learn more.
I had a short course on History of Philosophy in high-school which I liked but which was kind of fuzzy because that's the way philosophy is. It was hard to discern any progress or direction in the study of philosophy over the centuries.
Whereas with math, there is no fuzziness about it, except in Fuzzy Logic of course.
Because 4 years already isn't enough time.
Very true, similar to what happened to geometric algebra.
I'm fairly confidently betting "illegal" since the Princeton University Press's own page about the book offers an ebook version for sale at a nontrivial price, which I doubt they would be doing if they were also offering a free PDF download.
(My saying this is not intended to imply anything about the ethics of reading this copy online, or downloading it, or printing it out, or of Doron Zeilberger's decision to make it available. Or for that matter about the ethics of selling it commercially and not making it officially available for free. Whatever the rights and wrongs, some people will care whether it's legal or not, and I'm pretty sure it's not.)
> Doron Zeilberger's decision to make it available
We don't know if it was a decision or a permissions error.
https://press.princeton.edu/books/ebook/9781400830398/the-pr...