What do you think?
Rate this book
Genius at Play: The Curious Mind of John Horton Conway
A multifaceted biography of a brilliant mathematician and iconoclast
A mathematician unlike any other, John Horton Conway (1937–2020) possessed a rock star’s charisma, a polymath’s promiscuous curiosity, and a sly sense of humor. Conway found fame as a barefoot professor at Cambridge, where he discovered the Conway groups in mathematical symmetry and the aptly named surreal numbers. He also invented the cult classic Game of Life, a cellular automaton that demonstrates how simplicity generates complexity—and provides an analogy for mathematics and the entire universe. Moving to Princeton in 1987, Conway used ropes, dice, pennies, coat hangers, and the occasional Slinky to illustrate his winning imagination and share his nerdish delights. Genius at Play tells the story of this ambassador-at-large for the beauties and joys of mathematics, lays bare Conway’s personal and professional idiosyncrasies, and offers an intimate look into the mind of one of the twentieth century’s most endearing and original intellectuals.
A mathematician unlike any other, John Horton Conway (1937–2020) possessed a rock star’s charisma, a polymath’s promiscuous curiosity, and a sly sense of humor. Conway found fame as a barefoot professor at Cambridge, where he discovered the Conway groups in mathematical symmetry and the aptly named surreal numbers. He also invented the cult classic Game of Life, a cellular automaton that demonstrates how simplicity generates complexity—and provides an analogy for mathematics and the entire universe. Moving to Princeton in 1987, Conway used ropes, dice, pennies, coat hangers, and the occasional Slinky to illustrate his winning imagination and share his nerdish delights. Genius at Play tells the story of this ambassador-at-large for the beauties and joys of mathematics, lays bare Conway’s personal and professional idiosyncrasies, and offers an intimate look into the mind of one of the twentieth century’s most endearing and original intellectuals.
480 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2015
95 people are currently reading
1403 people want to read
About the author
Siobhan Roberts
4 books30 followersWhile writing the Conway biography, Siobhan Roberts was a Director’s Visitor at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton, and a Fellow at the Leon Levy Center for Biography, at the CUNY Graduate Center in New York City. In 2017 she won the JPBM Communications Award for Expository and Popular Books, bestowed by the American Mathematical Society and the Mathematical Association of America (putting her in good company with previous recipients James Gleick and Sylvia Nasar, among others).
She also wrote and produced a documentary film about Coxeter, The Man Who Saved Geometry, for TVOntario’s The View From Here (September 2009).
As a journalist, she writes for Newyorker.com, New York Times "Science Times," Quanta, and The Walrus. Her profile of the one-hundred-year-old mathematician Richard Guy was included in The Best Writing on Mathematics 2017 (Princeton University Press).
At various times she has contributed to The Globe and Mail, The Guardian, The Mathematical Intelligencer, Maisonneuve, Canadian Geographic, and Smithsonian, among other publications. She has won a few National Magazine Awards—writing about “the river of dust” at the National Archives in Ottawa, the occasion when the FBI came calling at Winnipeg’s level-4 National Microbiology Laboratory, and Donald Coxeter’s final journey, to a geometry conference in Budapest at the age of ninety-three.
She also wrote and produced a documentary film about Coxeter, The Man Who Saved Geometry, for TVOntario’s The View From Here (September 2009).
As a journalist, she writes for Newyorker.com, New York Times "Science Times," Quanta, and The Walrus. Her profile of the one-hundred-year-old mathematician Richard Guy was included in The Best Writing on Mathematics 2017 (Princeton University Press).
At various times she has contributed to The Globe and Mail, The Guardian, The Mathematical Intelligencer, Maisonneuve, Canadian Geographic, and Smithsonian, among other publications. She has won a few National Magazine Awards—writing about “the river of dust” at the National Archives in Ottawa, the occasion when the FBI came calling at Winnipeg’s level-4 National Microbiology Laboratory, and Donald Coxeter’s final journey, to a geometry conference in Budapest at the age of ninety-three.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
August 16, 2015
This is a biography of the mathematician John H. Conway. Roberts quotes Conway throughout the book along with corroborating facts with other people who were there. Many of the mathematicians quoted in the book have their own biographies written.
The book is written with great appreciation for Conway in spite of his serial philandering and absolute rejection of all responsibility for his personal affairs. Roberts covers Conway’s suicide attempt. Of course a book about a mathematician will have math in it.
He discovered the Conway groups in mathematical symmetry. His names is in group theory, game theory, knot theory, abstract algebra, geometry and his famous creation of Conway’s Game of Life, a set of rules for propagating a pattern that generates incredible complexity.
The book is well written and at times hilarious. Most of the information comes from the author’s interviews with Conway. I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. Jennifer Van Dyck narrated the book. Van Dyck is a new narrator for me and I was impressed with her ability.
The book is written with great appreciation for Conway in spite of his serial philandering and absolute rejection of all responsibility for his personal affairs. Roberts covers Conway’s suicide attempt. Of course a book about a mathematician will have math in it.
He discovered the Conway groups in mathematical symmetry. His names is in group theory, game theory, knot theory, abstract algebra, geometry and his famous creation of Conway’s Game of Life, a set of rules for propagating a pattern that generates incredible complexity.
The book is well written and at times hilarious. Most of the information comes from the author’s interviews with Conway. I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. Jennifer Van Dyck narrated the book. Van Dyck is a new narrator for me and I was impressed with her ability.
May 17, 2019
Biography of mathematician John Horton Conway in three parts. Enough math and geometry to get the gist of his insights - definitely not overwhelming to the number phobic. Overseen by the subject, who is quoted liberally throughout, this is an interesting read.
Conway was very active in number and knot theory, groups and combinatorial games, but the first line of most biographical entries is the Game of Life. That work (and related exchanges with Martin Gardner) make up the middle part of the book; the other two are essentially before and after Life. An epilogue and appendices delve a little deeper into the math; a bibliography gives some direction for more. This is first and foremost a book about the mathematician, not the math.
Roberts first met Conway at Mathcamp while researching her book on Donald Coxeter, one of his mentors. The quirky lifestyle of Conway has led to many anecdotes, and resulted in a solid year of editing this biography. In the end, she has captured the eccentric genius in a very readable format. I look forward to reading her book on Coxeter, King of Infinite Space: Donald Coxeter, the Man Who Saved Geometry.
Conway was very active in number and knot theory, groups and combinatorial games, but the first line of most biographical entries is the Game of Life. That work (and related exchanges with Martin Gardner) make up the middle part of the book; the other two are essentially before and after Life. An epilogue and appendices delve a little deeper into the math; a bibliography gives some direction for more. This is first and foremost a book about the mathematician, not the math.
Roberts first met Conway at Mathcamp while researching her book on Donald Coxeter, one of his mentors. The quirky lifestyle of Conway has led to many anecdotes, and resulted in a solid year of editing this biography. In the end, she has captured the eccentric genius in a very readable format. I look forward to reading her book on Coxeter, King of Infinite Space: Donald Coxeter, the Man Who Saved Geometry.
November 12, 2020
Though nowhere near as well known as the other John of Princeton's mathematics department, John Nash (and there are many more noted Johns in the field and department for sure), Conway's contributions might end up being significantly more impactful societally and definitely deeper mathematically. This book does a good job explaining the subject areas he worked in, mostly discrete mathematics, with strong combinatorial motivations, and bring visibility to his little-known private life, which he was hesitant to reveal. There's some tragedy to reading the text now, as although Conway still lives, he has been suffering from ill-health recently, which had manifested themselves more profoundly around the time this book was being written.
Like Nash, Conway did revolutionize a field called "Game Theory", more specifically, what is now known as combinatorial game theory, which as very little to do with the "Game Theory" of Economics that Nash's thesis touched. Though in this case, these works may end up influencing humanity much deeper and more directly through their contributions to AI, than the notion of the Nash Equilibrium, which however novel or clear from an academic sense, seems to be mostly a meaningless concept in either the practice of economics, or as a model of actual human behavior. Ironically, the notion is more relevant in application towards machine decision processes, like resource allocations within servers, than they are towards their original motivating problem. Besides that extra strange tidbit, the two seem totally different. Whereas John Nash could be characterized as a clean-cut square in his youth, Conway seems to have been a free-wheeling thinker with a mind far more open and accepting, especially in the social domains. His seminal work on the "Game of Life" which was done entirely with pen and paper, has gone on to propel the notion of cellular automata on the map, and has influenced works from a very wide swath of fields from computer scientist and applied mathematician Stephen Wolfram to late Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling.
Probably the first agent-based model built and conceived of, one also sees the kernels of the formalism of Markov Decision Processes and other subjects that would inform the current work on Reinforcement Learning as well. So in a real sense, simulations, robotics, machine learning, AI, and computational and synthetic biology, and social sciences owe a tremendous debt to what Conway started. Yet, one discovers in the text, it is the discovery he is least fond of, given that is has crowded out attention from his other works, which he believes are more impactful.
The book covers many of these as well. Including his contribution towards the classification of finite simple groups in algebra, a generational enterprise of which he is considered one of the central drivers. Yet, even in this endeavor, Conway is disappointed in the work, as he believes the classification, though correct, has failed to impart any deeper understanding of what this structure means, or why it exists. Here Conway makes a distinction between the technical process of "verifying" existence and understanding it, with his emphasis on the later. It is his opinion that mathematicians should seek to understand more and verifying is less important in this respect. Though not stated explicitly in the text, it would seem Conway might find sympathies among the constructivist school of thought in mathematics given these opinions.
This leads to another observation, Conways work has touched many of the subject matters in the field of mathematics, from including some logic with his work on surreal number system, that led toward the "arithmetic" of games, algebra, number theory, computing, and even in his later years, applied mathematical work in the foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Though many of his contributions are currently under-appreciated within these professions, it is likely their impact will grow as time progresses and connections are made to his findings with current interests in these respective fields.
Besides an overview of his technical works, the book also dedicates much to his personal life and behavioral peccadillos. Conway has been thrice married, with numerous flings, has 5 children, with a few of them also becoming mathematicians, and seems to have an egalitarian view on mathematics education. He believes most people could achieve his type of work if they were given the right teaching and mentoring experience, and Conway follows up this belief with long contributions to high school and collegiate math camps and enrichment programs. He put real action to those ideals.
What we get is a portrait of a singular individual, who though socially obtuse (purposefully), was indeed still a human being with ideas and is relatable. His relatability and capability of human connection also probably accounts for the wide net of his works. As another thing that is clear from this text is beside his deep individual contributions, he was at the center or and promoted the collaboration of many other mathematicians. Ultimately it maybe this trait that will probably give Conway's legacy a longer and greater legacy relative to other accomplished mathematicians who were either too pompous or socially incapable to collaborate well within their careers.
Overall a great read on a person more people should look into, and who has important works, some of which are fairly accessible to the general reader. Highly recommended
Like Nash, Conway did revolutionize a field called "Game Theory", more specifically, what is now known as combinatorial game theory, which as very little to do with the "Game Theory" of Economics that Nash's thesis touched. Though in this case, these works may end up influencing humanity much deeper and more directly through their contributions to AI, than the notion of the Nash Equilibrium, which however novel or clear from an academic sense, seems to be mostly a meaningless concept in either the practice of economics, or as a model of actual human behavior. Ironically, the notion is more relevant in application towards machine decision processes, like resource allocations within servers, than they are towards their original motivating problem. Besides that extra strange tidbit, the two seem totally different. Whereas John Nash could be characterized as a clean-cut square in his youth, Conway seems to have been a free-wheeling thinker with a mind far more open and accepting, especially in the social domains. His seminal work on the "Game of Life" which was done entirely with pen and paper, has gone on to propel the notion of cellular automata on the map, and has influenced works from a very wide swath of fields from computer scientist and applied mathematician Stephen Wolfram to late Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling.
Probably the first agent-based model built and conceived of, one also sees the kernels of the formalism of Markov Decision Processes and other subjects that would inform the current work on Reinforcement Learning as well. So in a real sense, simulations, robotics, machine learning, AI, and computational and synthetic biology, and social sciences owe a tremendous debt to what Conway started. Yet, one discovers in the text, it is the discovery he is least fond of, given that is has crowded out attention from his other works, which he believes are more impactful.
The book covers many of these as well. Including his contribution towards the classification of finite simple groups in algebra, a generational enterprise of which he is considered one of the central drivers. Yet, even in this endeavor, Conway is disappointed in the work, as he believes the classification, though correct, has failed to impart any deeper understanding of what this structure means, or why it exists. Here Conway makes a distinction between the technical process of "verifying" existence and understanding it, with his emphasis on the later. It is his opinion that mathematicians should seek to understand more and verifying is less important in this respect. Though not stated explicitly in the text, it would seem Conway might find sympathies among the constructivist school of thought in mathematics given these opinions.
This leads to another observation, Conways work has touched many of the subject matters in the field of mathematics, from including some logic with his work on surreal number system, that led toward the "arithmetic" of games, algebra, number theory, computing, and even in his later years, applied mathematical work in the foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Though many of his contributions are currently under-appreciated within these professions, it is likely their impact will grow as time progresses and connections are made to his findings with current interests in these respective fields.
Besides an overview of his technical works, the book also dedicates much to his personal life and behavioral peccadillos. Conway has been thrice married, with numerous flings, has 5 children, with a few of them also becoming mathematicians, and seems to have an egalitarian view on mathematics education. He believes most people could achieve his type of work if they were given the right teaching and mentoring experience, and Conway follows up this belief with long contributions to high school and collegiate math camps and enrichment programs. He put real action to those ideals.
What we get is a portrait of a singular individual, who though socially obtuse (purposefully), was indeed still a human being with ideas and is relatable. His relatability and capability of human connection also probably accounts for the wide net of his works. As another thing that is clear from this text is beside his deep individual contributions, he was at the center or and promoted the collaboration of many other mathematicians. Ultimately it maybe this trait that will probably give Conway's legacy a longer and greater legacy relative to other accomplished mathematicians who were either too pompous or socially incapable to collaborate well within their careers.
Overall a great read on a person more people should look into, and who has important works, some of which are fairly accessible to the general reader. Highly recommended
June 15, 2023
The book itself was fine. I feel like on a five point scale of how deeply the author got into the work of John H Conway, this was maybe a two. Diagrams are provided but the star is really John rather than his work. The book also eschews a kind of start at the beginning approach and he gets his first faculty position seemingly 10% into the book. The frame of the text is John Conway lecturing about his free will theorem and that kind of keeps through it throughout. Much of the text focuses on his charisma as a lecturer which in no way comes across in the text. There are few notable lines from Conway or even quotes from others who hold him in high regard.
With that, here are some of my favorite bits.
*Conway was worried that his main legacy would be Conway's Game of Life would be how he was remembered. In doing some follow up research my heart sank at seeing all the memorials and tributes that led with "Conway, inventor of Conway's Game of Life, died xxx". His work symmetry groups is probably better remembered in the math world.
*Conway did a phenomenal number of calculations. He would work and work on ideas trying to find edge cases and outliers. This was partly shown when his personal "papers" included hundreds of receipts, envelopes, napkins, and spare scraps of paper on which he was working on his latest numerical idea. He thought it was important to do actual calculation and he did them constantly to stay sharp.
*Conway generally didn't care about proofs. Sometimes his pathway to a solution would create a proof but he generally wasn't concerned.
*Conway was fascinated by systems that seemingly generated knowledge. One of his proudest works was FRACTRAN (a pun on FORTRAN) which taking a sequence of 14 fractions and following simple rules would generate 2 to prime powers. He frequently wanted the simplest system that'd generate a given behavior.
*Conway and Stephen Wolfram had a complicated relationship with Wolfram thinking Conway focused too much on trivial things. Conway considered his games to be the best way to elucidate very small mathematical models.
*Conway's most common mistakes were called "Conway errors" where he'd reverse addition and subtraction. In one case he had spilled some coffee and instead of cleaning it up had made a Conway error and spilled more coffee on it before walking away.
*Conway was idolized by his son who he had at the age of 60.
With that, here are some of my favorite bits.
*Conway was worried that his main legacy would be Conway's Game of Life would be how he was remembered. In doing some follow up research my heart sank at seeing all the memorials and tributes that led with "Conway, inventor of Conway's Game of Life, died xxx". His work symmetry groups is probably better remembered in the math world.
*Conway did a phenomenal number of calculations. He would work and work on ideas trying to find edge cases and outliers. This was partly shown when his personal "papers" included hundreds of receipts, envelopes, napkins, and spare scraps of paper on which he was working on his latest numerical idea. He thought it was important to do actual calculation and he did them constantly to stay sharp.
*Conway generally didn't care about proofs. Sometimes his pathway to a solution would create a proof but he generally wasn't concerned.
*Conway was fascinated by systems that seemingly generated knowledge. One of his proudest works was FRACTRAN (a pun on FORTRAN) which taking a sequence of 14 fractions and following simple rules would generate 2 to prime powers. He frequently wanted the simplest system that'd generate a given behavior.
*Conway and Stephen Wolfram had a complicated relationship with Wolfram thinking Conway focused too much on trivial things. Conway considered his games to be the best way to elucidate very small mathematical models.
*Conway's most common mistakes were called "Conway errors" where he'd reverse addition and subtraction. In one case he had spilled some coffee and instead of cleaning it up had made a Conway error and spilled more coffee on it before walking away.
*Conway was idolized by his son who he had at the age of 60.
January 4, 2018
Such a fun book - not only an excellent character study of a one-of-a-kind man, but a collection of fascinating mathematical tidbits throughout the entire field (surreal numbers and their correspondence to games + the universality of the Game of Life blew my mind), since Conway was so prolific. You're taken on a whirlwind through game theory, group theory, math party tricks,
knot theory, philosophy, physics, and more.
The best takeaways spoke about new ways of thinking:
On the role of calculation in math (I was personally surprised how important numerical calculations were for Conway's group theory contributions: "he does thousands of calculations, looks at thousands of special cases, until he exposes the hidden pattern and divines the underlying structure.")
On the relationship between having fun and doing "significant" work:
On Conway's urge to spread his love of ideas through teaching:
On how to think about the hardest things:
On being a young researcher, and advancing human knowledge:
knot theory, philosophy, physics, and more.
The best takeaways spoke about new ways of thinking:
On the role of calculation in math (I was personally surprised how important numerical calculations were for Conway's group theory contributions: "he does thousands of calculations, looks at thousands of special cases, until he exposes the hidden pattern and divines the underlying structure.")
To concentrate on the calculation is misleading. It’s like asking an artist, “Where did you paint the person’s chin? Was it 1-foot-5 above the base of the picture, or 1-foot-6? And how far to the right was it?” Do you understand me? If you’re thinking about conceptual things, the measurements don’t matter...It’s rather unfortunate that we can’t just see these things. Because it means that I can only appreciate the beauty of them, truly, after I’ve have done the calculation. But the calculation isn’t the point.
On the relationship between having fun and doing "significant" work:
You know, when you play a game, if you learn to be good at it, you find what it is you should be thinking about. That is really rather subtle. And that’s what we do in mathematics.
On Conway's urge to spread his love of ideas through teaching:
“That’s part of his magic,” says Thurston. “He thinks a lot about how people will understand something, he thinks a lot about ways to communicate with people, to surprise and impress, not to keep them mystified, but to make them wake up and take note.”
On how to think about the hardest things:
If you can’t understand something, you can at least relate it to something else you don’t understand.
On being a young researcher, and advancing human knowledge:
If you have indeed discovered something, but then discover that someone else discovered it before you, consider yourself in good company, and mark your progress. If you find something already discovered 2,000 years ago, then 200, then 20, at least you are improving. And then, if you’re lucky, next maybe you’ll discover something new.
September 10, 2015
Perhaps for those who prefer Ulysses to The Count of Monte Cristo. The math itself is generally kept at a “let’s not lose the mathphobic folks” level. That leaves: the process of creating/discovering the math, standard biographical stuff (place of birth, favorite cereal etc.), Conway vignettes, and lots of Conway quotes. The exposition of the creation/discovery process was far too discursive for my taste; with the narrative jumping all over the place, I couldn’t engage with any of the stories. (Perhaps some deeper point about the creative process was being made here, but that sort of thing is above my head.) Conway’s third wife summarizes the standard biography stuff: “I think John [Conway] is the most selfish, childlike person I have ever met.” Regarding vignettes, I won’t spoil them, but do not expect a whole lot of Feynman like escapades. That brings me to Conway’s quotes. “Were Conway not so long-winded, this biography might have wrapped up some time ago.” Conway’s expansiveness would have been fine, except that I could not comprehend his Yoda like pronouncements. To sum up, if you like the following passage, I suspect you will love this book: “[Conway and his co-authors] would engage with a game, interface with it on a metaphysical level. ‘With a game, you shouldn’t do anything as vulgar as play it,’ said Norton.” But I am vulgar, and even worse, an engineer, a decidedly non-genius one at that.
March 31, 2018
Watch out both your left and right {L|R}, there are galaxies of numbers here. Conway is a mathematician with infinite degrees of freedom and fun. Outrageous fella. Awful smart. Naturally obsessed with puzzles. Because mathematics is largest puzzle ever built, a sort of LEGO that you can create your own pieces or reuse some from friends. Amusing that life (evolution) has been wisely rewarding puzzle-solving with pleasure. Not like sex, but lasts longer! Conway would shout. He even created automata life himself. Surreal. Yeap, those as well. Knuth even wrote a cute book about Conway’s Surreal Numbers. And there is more... This biography is delicious in all dimensions.
July 25, 2015
John Horton Conway (inventor of the computer game "life", inventor of surreal numbers, etc) is a fascinating man and this is a wonderful biography capturing him in all his exasperating and intriguing ways.
June 19, 2020
If you're going to write a book about a living person (as of the book's publication in 2015: Conway passed away earlier this year, seemingly from Covid-19), this is how to do it. Roberts has done a lot of research but synthesized it into a chatty, magazine-profileish book. It doesn't hurt that the subject is such a boisterous and garrulous character. (Maybe a little: Conway is open about everything, but often fabulates for the sake of a better story, and Roberts has to sort out the contradictions between his tales and the versions she hears from others.)
Conway is for that reason an ideal book subject, not as brilliant as a Groethendieck or an Andrew Wiles but a broad-minded generalist who innovated in manifold smaller ways, always following his playful and hyperactive mind; and as someone with an outsized influence and inspiration beyond the mathematical world. Donald Knuth relates that a sign in his Cambridge department read "For number theory, see x; for algebra, see y; for analysis, see z; for anything else see Conway."
The amazing thing about Conway is that this persona was entirely invented. In Roberts' telling, he realised as a shy and introverted teenager on the train to Cambridge that as he was going somewhere totally new he could create a new personality. Thus was born Conway the party animal, the narcissist, the womanizer, the raconteur, the constant gamer; for the entire rest of his life!
Hanging out with Conway we get a tour of his great discoveries, starting with the eponymous Game of Life (which he's sick of discussing), the Conway groups (including the monstrous moonshine - Conway, a lover of etymology, had a flair for naming things), surreal numbers, and more trivial ones like "phutball" and the FRACTRAN language. But for Conway, the boundary between serious and trivial never mattered much.
(Nitpick: the Audible reader, Jennifer Van Dyck, mispronounces the Cambridge college where Conway studied - a tricky one [Gonville and Caius] but it comes up a lot. [Also the language TeX, but that only appears once.])
Conway is for that reason an ideal book subject, not as brilliant as a Groethendieck or an Andrew Wiles but a broad-minded generalist who innovated in manifold smaller ways, always following his playful and hyperactive mind; and as someone with an outsized influence and inspiration beyond the mathematical world. Donald Knuth relates that a sign in his Cambridge department read "For number theory, see x; for algebra, see y; for analysis, see z; for anything else see Conway."
The amazing thing about Conway is that this persona was entirely invented. In Roberts' telling, he realised as a shy and introverted teenager on the train to Cambridge that as he was going somewhere totally new he could create a new personality. Thus was born Conway the party animal, the narcissist, the womanizer, the raconteur, the constant gamer; for the entire rest of his life!
Hanging out with Conway we get a tour of his great discoveries, starting with the eponymous Game of Life (which he's sick of discussing), the Conway groups (including the monstrous moonshine - Conway, a lover of etymology, had a flair for naming things), surreal numbers, and more trivial ones like "phutball" and the FRACTRAN language. But for Conway, the boundary between serious and trivial never mattered much.
(Nitpick: the Audible reader, Jennifer Van Dyck, mispronounces the Cambridge college where Conway studied - a tricky one [Gonville and Caius] but it comes up a lot. [Also the language TeX, but that only appears once.])
October 17, 2015
Nella prefazione di questo libro si spiega che John Conway ha un ego così grande che si è scelto di usare una font specifica per trascrivere le sue parole Questo dovrebbe far capire a che tipo di biografia ci troviamo davanti. Non so esattamente quanto Conway sia noto al grande pubblico italiano: forse qualcuno conosce Life, che in fin dei conti è solo stato un suo interludio giovanile e che ormai lo infastidisce anche un po'. Come biografia il libro è probabilmente troppo involuto: c'è una specie di filo conduttore ma si continua a saltare dal passato al presente, e la memoria di Conway per minuzie come i dettagli della sua vita è praticamente nulla. Diciamo che la struttura del libro assomiglia molto a quella dell'ufficio di Conway. In compenso, quasi come un documentario - probabilmente se ne tirerebbe fuori uno niente male - le interviste ad altri nomi sacri della matematica sono interessanti perché ci permettono di vedere la matematica della fine del ventesimo secolo in modo più ampio. Non preoccupatevi se non avete mai capito nulla di matematica: continuerete a non capirla. Ma se siete attenti potrete capire perché c'è gente che la ama così tanto.
July 1, 2015
*I received an ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.*
Genius At Play: The Curious Mind of John Horton Conway is, hands down, the best biography I have read since The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a phenomenal portrait of an incredible mathematician and man. I have a fairly decent mathematical base (my dad is a mathematician) so while I didn't understand much of the math contained here, I didn't find it distracting or overwhelming. What was awkward was the number of times I laughed aloud while reading it on the airplane and in airports. This is charming, educational, and just plain fun. If you are debating reading this book once it's published, stop debating right now and just put it at the top of your list. It's so very, very wonderful.
Genius At Play: The Curious Mind of John Horton Conway is, hands down, the best biography I have read since The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a phenomenal portrait of an incredible mathematician and man. I have a fairly decent mathematical base (my dad is a mathematician) so while I didn't understand much of the math contained here, I didn't find it distracting or overwhelming. What was awkward was the number of times I laughed aloud while reading it on the airplane and in airports. This is charming, educational, and just plain fun. If you are debating reading this book once it's published, stop debating right now and just put it at the top of your list. It's so very, very wonderful.
August 22, 2022
This is a well narrated story on the life, loves and laureates of John Conway as narrated to the author.
It starts out talking about Conway's penchant for mathematics as a boy, who struggled with an introverted personality.
In classic coming of age story telling fashion, he transformation while in university Cambridge to an rockstar extrovert, solving an open problem after graduation to cement his prowess as a mathematician to his peers.
Naturally love and heartbreak occurs on the path to his accrual of many achievements and so do illness.
This is a book for those that seek to understand the mind behind the game of life, the atlas of finite groups, the surreal numbers and hear wonderful simple explanations of it in a relatable, clear and without frills.
This is a book for those that want to peer at the man more, not just the mathematician.
This is a book for those that see to peer into the past of a curious soul that has left too soon.
A book that truly seems to be for everyone.
It starts out talking about Conway's penchant for mathematics as a boy, who struggled with an introverted personality.
In classic coming of age story telling fashion, he transformation while in university Cambridge to an rockstar extrovert, solving an open problem after graduation to cement his prowess as a mathematician to his peers.
Naturally love and heartbreak occurs on the path to his accrual of many achievements and so do illness.
This is a book for those that seek to understand the mind behind the game of life, the atlas of finite groups, the surreal numbers and hear wonderful simple explanations of it in a relatable, clear and without frills.
This is a book for those that want to peer at the man more, not just the mathematician.
This is a book for those that see to peer into the past of a curious soul that has left too soon.
A book that truly seems to be for everyone.
April 15, 2015
Thanks Bloomsbury USA and netgalley for this arc.
Awesome biography! After I read this book, I looked Conway up a youtube. Wish I could have understood the games more, but just reading about how he never stopped learning and having fun with math was cool.
Awesome biography! After I read this book, I looked Conway up a youtube. Wish I could have understood the games more, but just reading about how he never stopped learning and having fun with math was cool.
June 15, 2020
Conway fue un hallazgo feliz: buscando un video de Martin Gardner el algoritmo de YouTube -por una vez útil- me ofreció una charla de él. La miré y me sorprendí por sus logros mencionados por quien lo introdujo, y la fascinación con la que contaba sobre los números surreales. Quise saber más, y luego de ver un par más de videos descubrí que en 2015 habían escrito esta biografía sobre él.
Me gustan las biografías: desde las extensas y minuciosas hasta las reseñas de vidas de un Paul Johnson o las brevísimas introducciones de un Juan Forn. Sobre todo cuando la persona sirve de contexto y excusa tal vez para una indagación más profunda y ambiciosa; la anécdota como relieve y nueva capa de comprensión. Esta felicidad me ocurrió en este libro. A medida que vamos avanzando en la vida de Conway vemos cameos de Nash, Wiles, Hawkings, Einstein y otros grandes matemáticos y físicos, siendo sobre todo una búsqueda de gran placer intelectual hacia la matemática que nacía de su mente. Vemos la génesis de su Juego de la vida que tanto amó y luego odió (como les pasa a muchos que tienen un gran hit temprano), los grupos esporádicos y particularmente el grupo Monstruo, la aparición de los números surreales y último aporte, el teorema de la voluntad libre. Al ver sus performances, excentricidades y personalidad más que genio se me hace un artista curioso que juega con el Go, con las cuerdas, con distintos tipos de juegos y saca conclusiones. Un chico que nunca dejó de jugar con un don para ver cosas que nadie vio y encantar a las audiencias al compartirlas. Tal vez de ahí su repercusión en Estados Unidos, ávido de estas personalidades seductoras.
Más que una biografía siento que es un muy buen libro de divulgación. Ameno, con chispazos de anécdotas para matizar, no escapa a profundizar en los aspectos matemáticos o físicos de las ideas de Conway. Se nota el oficio de la biógrafa como periodista científica para animarse al desafío de comprender la teoría y no quedarse en la superficie (sin la ayuda de Conway varias veces). Y como tal genera nuevas lecturas y apetitos: quiero leer más sobre su ídolo Coxeter -de quien también realizó su biografía la autora-, estuve explorando apps del Juego de la Vida muy interesantes y descargué Brilliant, una app donde ya estoy jugando con temas de geometría.
Siguiendo con las coincidencias del principio leyendo su Wikipedia me enteré que falleció hace unas semanas por Covid. Y tal vez pueda sintetizarse este libro como una expansión de esa entrada (en inglés) siendo ésta una forma de elogio: recorre su vida e hitos más trascendentes como matemático con un nivel de atrapa y deja ganas de entender más. Seguramente este año me anime a un par de obras suyas, siendo On numbers and games (ONAG), Winning Ways y Atlas of finite groups las grandes candidatas.
Me gustan las biografías: desde las extensas y minuciosas hasta las reseñas de vidas de un Paul Johnson o las brevísimas introducciones de un Juan Forn. Sobre todo cuando la persona sirve de contexto y excusa tal vez para una indagación más profunda y ambiciosa; la anécdota como relieve y nueva capa de comprensión. Esta felicidad me ocurrió en este libro. A medida que vamos avanzando en la vida de Conway vemos cameos de Nash, Wiles, Hawkings, Einstein y otros grandes matemáticos y físicos, siendo sobre todo una búsqueda de gran placer intelectual hacia la matemática que nacía de su mente. Vemos la génesis de su Juego de la vida que tanto amó y luego odió (como les pasa a muchos que tienen un gran hit temprano), los grupos esporádicos y particularmente el grupo Monstruo, la aparición de los números surreales y último aporte, el teorema de la voluntad libre. Al ver sus performances, excentricidades y personalidad más que genio se me hace un artista curioso que juega con el Go, con las cuerdas, con distintos tipos de juegos y saca conclusiones. Un chico que nunca dejó de jugar con un don para ver cosas que nadie vio y encantar a las audiencias al compartirlas. Tal vez de ahí su repercusión en Estados Unidos, ávido de estas personalidades seductoras.
Más que una biografía siento que es un muy buen libro de divulgación. Ameno, con chispazos de anécdotas para matizar, no escapa a profundizar en los aspectos matemáticos o físicos de las ideas de Conway. Se nota el oficio de la biógrafa como periodista científica para animarse al desafío de comprender la teoría y no quedarse en la superficie (sin la ayuda de Conway varias veces). Y como tal genera nuevas lecturas y apetitos: quiero leer más sobre su ídolo Coxeter -de quien también realizó su biografía la autora-, estuve explorando apps del Juego de la Vida muy interesantes y descargué Brilliant, una app donde ya estoy jugando con temas de geometría.
Siguiendo con las coincidencias del principio leyendo su Wikipedia me enteré que falleció hace unas semanas por Covid. Y tal vez pueda sintetizarse este libro como una expansión de esa entrada (en inglés) siendo ésta una forma de elogio: recorre su vida e hitos más trascendentes como matemático con un nivel de atrapa y deja ganas de entender más. Seguramente este año me anime a un par de obras suyas, siendo On numbers and games (ONAG), Winning Ways y Atlas of finite groups las grandes candidatas.
May 11, 2025
A playful biography of one of the most creative mathematicians of modern times.
Both the title and sub-title are plays on words, which I'm sure Conway himself enjoyed. He is seen here as a genius playing with ideas, but his genius manifested itself through games, of which he was a prolific inventor; he was curious about everything he encountered, but was also unusual in the ways in which his mind approached challenges and indeed in what he saw as challenges.
It's hard to read that Conway ended up hating his best-known invention, the Game of Life, when it's been so influential on mathematicians, computer scientists, and the public at large. He saw it as the least amongst his discoveries, and indeed that's an opinion that's hard to fault: his discoveries in number theory, group theory, game theory, and other fields have been hugely influential, and each alone would have justified his fame. But they were also so technical as to be confined to a narrow group of specialists even within those specialist fields, whereas Life has achieved a life of its own in the popular imagination, it's only real rival being the Mandelbrot set.
The Conway who emerges here would, I think, have been enormous fun to know and talk with – as long as you didn't actually have to work with him or get anything from him, in which case he would be a frustrating and unpredictable collaborator. His several books were written with collaborators who needed patience to deal with him and get him to finish his commitments: they probably only hung-in with him because of a determination to give him the credit he was due. (It's interesting that two collaborators once dealt with this by removing him as a co-author and instead putting his name in the paper's title!) He was similarly unpredictable as a speaker, sometimes incredbly charismatic and sometimes failing terribly due to lack of preparation: never a sighn of someone who cares about their audience, although he clearly did care desperately, at least sometimes.
Conway's was a talent that the scientific world needs, not content to stay with a single field but contributing widely and thereby bringing his wider expertise to bear on problems that might otherwise have remained unexplored. There's a confidence in such an approach that's sometimes hard to summon-up in today's academia, which rewards increasigly incremental contributions of increasingly narrow depth. Conway was aware of this, but chose (or felt compelled by his own nature) to ignore it, and that's admirable in itself.
Both the title and sub-title are plays on words, which I'm sure Conway himself enjoyed. He is seen here as a genius playing with ideas, but his genius manifested itself through games, of which he was a prolific inventor; he was curious about everything he encountered, but was also unusual in the ways in which his mind approached challenges and indeed in what he saw as challenges.
It's hard to read that Conway ended up hating his best-known invention, the Game of Life, when it's been so influential on mathematicians, computer scientists, and the public at large. He saw it as the least amongst his discoveries, and indeed that's an opinion that's hard to fault: his discoveries in number theory, group theory, game theory, and other fields have been hugely influential, and each alone would have justified his fame. But they were also so technical as to be confined to a narrow group of specialists even within those specialist fields, whereas Life has achieved a life of its own in the popular imagination, it's only real rival being the Mandelbrot set.
The Conway who emerges here would, I think, have been enormous fun to know and talk with – as long as you didn't actually have to work with him or get anything from him, in which case he would be a frustrating and unpredictable collaborator. His several books were written with collaborators who needed patience to deal with him and get him to finish his commitments: they probably only hung-in with him because of a determination to give him the credit he was due. (It's interesting that two collaborators once dealt with this by removing him as a co-author and instead putting his name in the paper's title!) He was similarly unpredictable as a speaker, sometimes incredbly charismatic and sometimes failing terribly due to lack of preparation: never a sighn of someone who cares about their audience, although he clearly did care desperately, at least sometimes.
Conway's was a talent that the scientific world needs, not content to stay with a single field but contributing widely and thereby bringing his wider expertise to bear on problems that might otherwise have remained unexplored. There's a confidence in such an approach that's sometimes hard to summon-up in today's academia, which rewards increasigly incremental contributions of increasingly narrow depth. Conway was aware of this, but chose (or felt compelled by his own nature) to ignore it, and that's admirable in itself.
February 19, 2022
Born and raised in Liverpool, John Horton Conway [1937-2020] was a mathematician and explainer extraordinaire, who became known as the barefoot professor in Cambridge. He moved to Princeton in 1987 and died in New Brunswick, NJ, of COVID-19. Among the general public, he is best known for his Game of Life, which models how life unfolds among microorganisms and how extremely simple local rules can lead to complex global phenomena. His claims to fame among mathematicians include the invention of Conway groups, knot theory, and surreal numbers (so named by Donald Knuth).
Thanks to extended access, generously granted by Conway, Roberts lays bare personal and professional idiosyncrasies of the genius who loved to use props (cards, dice, ropes, and anything else he could muster) to share his mathematical obsessions with everyone around him. He used the memorable and provocative wording, "If experimenters have free will, then so do elementary particles," to explain "the free will theorem" (proved jointly with Simon B. Kochen), a startling version of the no-hidden-variables principle of quantum mechanics.
Conway corresponded and developed a friendship with Martin Gardner, who wrote a regular column on recreational mathematics for Scientific American. Gardner featured Conway's Game of Life in a 1970 column that became his most popular one. Conway himself came to hate talking about Game of Life, because he deemed it his least-important invention that overshadowed his true contributions to mathematics, including surreal numbers, which he considered his most important discovery.
After reading Genius at Play, I was delighted to discover this 63-minute Google talk, during which John Conway and Siobhan Roberts spar about the book and take questions from the audience. This talk is just as fascinating as the book!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1bDS...
Thanks to extended access, generously granted by Conway, Roberts lays bare personal and professional idiosyncrasies of the genius who loved to use props (cards, dice, ropes, and anything else he could muster) to share his mathematical obsessions with everyone around him. He used the memorable and provocative wording, "If experimenters have free will, then so do elementary particles," to explain "the free will theorem" (proved jointly with Simon B. Kochen), a startling version of the no-hidden-variables principle of quantum mechanics.
Conway corresponded and developed a friendship with Martin Gardner, who wrote a regular column on recreational mathematics for Scientific American. Gardner featured Conway's Game of Life in a 1970 column that became his most popular one. Conway himself came to hate talking about Game of Life, because he deemed it his least-important invention that overshadowed his true contributions to mathematics, including surreal numbers, which he considered his most important discovery.
After reading Genius at Play, I was delighted to discover this 63-minute Google talk, during which John Conway and Siobhan Roberts spar about the book and take questions from the audience. This talk is just as fascinating as the book!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1bDS...
January 27, 2019
Roberts has produced a compelling sketch of Conway both as a (highly creative) mathematician and as an individual, and somehow also managed to make the fascination of (more or less pure) mathematics palpable for the layperson. Through their (Roberts and Conway’s) journeys and (often humorous) interactions, we gain a small window into Conway’s background, work ethic, habits, mindset, and struggles (alongside refreshing hints of how at least some of his image was consciously constructed), all of which the academic in me would love to draw some lessons from.
Bonus neuroscience content: Towards the end of the book, they pay a visit to Sandra Witelson, the neuroscientist who has made it her mission to study the brains of individuals thought to have remarkable minds. I am only very loosely acquainted with her work, so I may just be missing the complete picture, but I found myself nodding along to the more skeptical stance of neuroscience-layman Conway in response to some of her thoughts and methods, such as when she said, “I have people asking me whether Einstein’s brain got to be the way it is because he did so much physics. And of course I think it is the other way around. I think he did so much physics because his brain had a certain anatomy.”
I doubt her narrative, but that is far from the point of the book, so I’ll leave it at that. Suffice it to say that I don’t think that her fMRI studies of Conway will produce any meaningful insights into his creative ingenuity.
I took a lot of additional pleasure in the vivid scenes of his life in Cambridge (between the 50s and the 80s), both in the sense of its historical insights, as well as that reminiscent delight of tracing a historical narrative in a physical place that one is (at least slightly) familiar with.
I really enjoyed this trip, and look forward to further encounters with mathematical ideas and concepts (and personalities). (Interestingly, the "beauty and truth" of mathematics, as propagated here, conveniently show the seduction with which certain pockets of theoretical physics may have gotten lost in math.)
Bonus neuroscience content: Towards the end of the book, they pay a visit to Sandra Witelson, the neuroscientist who has made it her mission to study the brains of individuals thought to have remarkable minds. I am only very loosely acquainted with her work, so I may just be missing the complete picture, but I found myself nodding along to the more skeptical stance of neuroscience-layman Conway in response to some of her thoughts and methods, such as when she said, “I have people asking me whether Einstein’s brain got to be the way it is because he did so much physics. And of course I think it is the other way around. I think he did so much physics because his brain had a certain anatomy.”
I doubt her narrative, but that is far from the point of the book, so I’ll leave it at that. Suffice it to say that I don’t think that her fMRI studies of Conway will produce any meaningful insights into his creative ingenuity.
I took a lot of additional pleasure in the vivid scenes of his life in Cambridge (between the 50s and the 80s), both in the sense of its historical insights, as well as that reminiscent delight of tracing a historical narrative in a physical place that one is (at least slightly) familiar with.
I really enjoyed this trip, and look forward to further encounters with mathematical ideas and concepts (and personalities). (Interestingly, the "beauty and truth" of mathematics, as propagated here, conveniently show the seduction with which certain pockets of theoretical physics may have gotten lost in math.)
January 5, 2020
Conway is a prolific mathematician, active in theory of finite groups, knot theory, number theory or recreational maths. He is kind of famous for his invention of the Game of Life, but also another games like Sprouts or Phutball, even a new numerical system, the surreal numbers.
A little eccentric, there is no doubt that John H. Conway is a genius. And as such, his career is very interesting. The author says the only way to write a biography of him was with Conway speaking a lot for himself, for he is a great talker. She says: «and while the volume of primary source material doesn't dictate the length of a book, Conway's talent for chattering on guaranteed his biography would be something more than a jumped-up character sketch—he's hard to turn off, and he's difficult to condese».
So, the information for the book comes from a main source: Conway himself, to whom Roberts quotes throughout the entire book. His interventions are fresh, witty and sometimes hilarious. Besides, she also interviewed people close to him, both his family and his colleagues.
In this book there is a lot of his mathematical career, and only some brief explanations of his personal life. You will find here the mathematician rather than the person. I like this approach, for although his life partly explains his personality and his manners, it is his profesional life what I am more curious about. Roberts explores Conway's suicide attempt, but she only but she does not go too deep into his love affairs.
A little eccentric, there is no doubt that John H. Conway is a genius. And as such, his career is very interesting. The author says the only way to write a biography of him was with Conway speaking a lot for himself, for he is a great talker. She says: «and while the volume of primary source material doesn't dictate the length of a book, Conway's talent for chattering on guaranteed his biography would be something more than a jumped-up character sketch—he's hard to turn off, and he's difficult to condese».
So, the information for the book comes from a main source: Conway himself, to whom Roberts quotes throughout the entire book. His interventions are fresh, witty and sometimes hilarious. Besides, she also interviewed people close to him, both his family and his colleagues.
In this book there is a lot of his mathematical career, and only some brief explanations of his personal life. You will find here the mathematician rather than the person. I like this approach, for although his life partly explains his personality and his manners, it is his profesional life what I am more curious about. Roberts explores Conway's suicide attempt, but she only but she does not go too deep into his love affairs.
November 6, 2020
We mathematicians are, in general, an unconventional collection of people, sometimes to an extreme that defies the bounds of polite society. Ever since I was indoctrinated into this order, I have wondered whether this disregard for norms was intrinsic. I.e., was it similar to a psychiatric condition, where a mathematician is simply unable to meet societal norms -- or at least only able to do so with great difficulty? Or is it like the picture of a star athlete -- someone who is so good at something that not enough people are willing to say "no".
For some reason, it did not occur to me until recently that both possibilities could be true, depending on the mathematician. As I read through this book, I became steadily convinced that Conway was in the second camp. He was eccentric in ways that inconvenienced and hurt others, and he did so because he could.
As it turns out, I could have saved myself the trouble of making that judgement by skipping to the last chapter. Therein is this quote from Diana, his third wife, "I think John is the most selfish, childlike person I have ever met. One of the reasons I find that so intolerable is that I know damn well he can be human if he cares enough."
I give the author great credit for immersing me in the world of John Conway, to the extent that I spent my reading time thinking about Conway rather than the prose.
For some reason, it did not occur to me until recently that both possibilities could be true, depending on the mathematician. As I read through this book, I became steadily convinced that Conway was in the second camp. He was eccentric in ways that inconvenienced and hurt others, and he did so because he could.
As it turns out, I could have saved myself the trouble of making that judgement by skipping to the last chapter. Therein is this quote from Diana, his third wife, "I think John is the most selfish, childlike person I have ever met. One of the reasons I find that so intolerable is that I know damn well he can be human if he cares enough."
I give the author great credit for immersing me in the world of John Conway, to the extent that I spent my reading time thinking about Conway rather than the prose.
May 17, 2020
Since, sadly, Conway recently died of Coronavirus, this biography should find a wide readership and make the author a good deal of money. However, it is unfortunate that, though readers will be entertained and amused by Conway's pranks and numerous eccentricities, the opportunity to interest and educate general readers in his mathematics has been missed. The author clearly understands hardly anything about the mathematics described. There is some barely, halfway decent discussion of infinite sets toward the beginning and some about Conway's work with multi-dimensonal spaces, but the book is padded with things such as a long list of names constellations, which has a little to do with Conway's interest in counting or even with astronomy in general. The book is praised by reviewers for not scaring readers away with technical mathematics, which is good, but it is unfortunate that the work was not written by someone who not only can write popularly and humorously, as does Roberts, but has some knowledge of Conway's mathematics. Amusing but disappointing.
February 2, 2024
I have been meaning to read this book since I met John Conway and his biographer at Mathcamp in the summer of 2013 (the book came out in 2015). I saw a copy of the book for $2 at the MIT book sale so I thought I would finally get to it. So nostalgic! I met John Conway at 5 different summer programs and got to spend many hours with him. I even got to interview him one night, well past midnight, and still have the interview sitting in my Dropbox. John Conway is one of those people that show you just how special human beings can be. He definitely influenced me and shaped me in who I am today mathematically. I didn't love the biographer's writing as much, but she put every word uttered by John Conway in its own separate paragraph and font. I enjoyed that. Worth a read, even if only for the nostalgic value. If you have never heard of John Conway, it still has a lot of good ideas and insights (if you enjoy math).
October 16, 2021
Great insight into the world of maths. I picked this up off the shelf as a random selection from suggestions in the library app – I thought he was the inventor of Game of Life the board game! Anyway I very quickly figured out I was on the wrong track, but by that stage I was a few pages in and fascinated by both the man and the math. And also by the pursuit of math for math’s sake, similar to art for art’s sake, or, as mentioned in the book, doing math being like climbing Mt Everest because it’s there. The game of life, surreal numbers, the monstrous multidimensional geometry and the Free Will Theorem, the ropes and knots untangling - so many topics to ponder more. And what an character/ego JHC is, like a rock star but in academia!
June 28, 2022
"The Curious Mind of John Horton Conway"
Conway played games, many silly little children's games (example dots and boxes, a paper and pencil game) but he played them with great attention and for longer and more thoroughly than children do. And from the results he made original contributions to the mathematics of numbers - a major contribution being Conway Groups. Whatever Group Theory is, perhaps something to do with symmetry in 26 dimensional space,my grasp of math is not up to it!
He also gave us the computer "Game of Life". He lectured and spoke bare foot or in sandals, even in Montreal Canada in winter. Quite a character - but then geniuses sometimes are - Einstein didn't wear socks and Richard Feyman sketched female dancers in a bar.
Conway played games, many silly little children's games (example dots and boxes, a paper and pencil game) but he played them with great attention and for longer and more thoroughly than children do. And from the results he made original contributions to the mathematics of numbers - a major contribution being Conway Groups. Whatever Group Theory is, perhaps something to do with symmetry in 26 dimensional space,my grasp of math is not up to it!
He also gave us the computer "Game of Life". He lectured and spoke bare foot or in sandals, even in Montreal Canada in winter. Quite a character - but then geniuses sometimes are - Einstein didn't wear socks and Richard Feyman sketched female dancers in a bar.
August 22, 2024
3-4 stars. Around 400 pages was a long read, and bits were repetitive. How many times does he say, "I hate Life!" (the CA game)? Glad to have read it, glad to have finished it. On the flip side, I wish there was more about the underlying math he loved, or at least solid pointers to "here's a good 'Surreal Numbers for Dummies' guide." There's only a few scant pages at the end. I also noticed some mistakes throughout the book (e.g., a 2 where there should have been a 1, IIRC, for a surreals example; Conway leaves out Hydrogen when reading off the periodic table - did he, or was that a typo?).
Just marveling at a genius is not an exciting read, especially when Conway said he thinks anyone can do his sort of math, with enough training.
Just marveling at a genius is not an exciting read, especially when Conway said he thinks anyone can do his sort of math, with enough training.
October 4, 2020
John Horton Conway was a brilliant mathematician. Siobhan Roberts examines his life and influence in a series of dialogues. Unfortunately, Conway died amidst this COVID-19 pandemic.
Honestly, before this book, I had only heard of Conway from his Game of Life. This fact would have disappointed him. He did several things in game theory, geometry, geometric topology, group theory, number theory, algebra, analysis, algorithmics, and theoretical physics. He loved games and puzzles. Finally, he had an Erdos number of 1, since he was a co-author with Paul Erdos.
Siobhan Roberts wrote this book in 2015, allowing him to interview Conway.
Honestly, before this book, I had only heard of Conway from his Game of Life. This fact would have disappointed him. He did several things in game theory, geometry, geometric topology, group theory, number theory, algebra, analysis, algorithmics, and theoretical physics. He loved games and puzzles. Finally, he had an Erdos number of 1, since he was a co-author with Paul Erdos.
Siobhan Roberts wrote this book in 2015, allowing him to interview Conway.
September 8, 2020
Probably in terms of research, as well as countless hours - over years - spent by the author with Conway himself, this book ought to rate 5-stars. But had too many musings/ramblings of Conway which were often whimsical and/or 'fabulous' (as in 'fable') and I found myself skimming over those. The examination of Conway was quite exhaustive. And exhausting - he must be an exhausting person to have to live with. For some reason I didn't find this book as compelling as Roberts' earlier book about the geometer Coxeter, so I've just rated it 3-stars (perhaps unfairly).
August 15, 2018
I gave it 5 stars for the simple reason that I've never read a book like this, let alone a biography. It was simply unique in how it set out to frame its subject, a mathematician dealing in truly abstract spaces. I can't say I know that much more about surreal numbers now that I did before reading the book, but I did get a sense of what it meant to think about them and that was something. Also, I know far more about the Game of Life than I care to now.
June 5, 2022
Hmm... it was interesting to a rough timeline and a whole bunch of entertaining anecdotes about Conway. However, it found the discussion of the math a bit lacking... I understand that a mass-market book has do some concessions, but a bit deeper explanations of the surreals, the Game etc. beyond some rather superficial analogies would have been very welcome. Admittedly, it'd be hard to find the right balance!
October 19, 2019
A curiously interesting fellow that I thought I had never heard of until I got to the part about cellular automata . Its a good read and he did not have the sort of Life that I had imagined maths professors led. It’s an easy to read book that draws you in, with the author being part of the story while not getting in the way.
November 7, 2023
Not a huge fan of the biographer being a part of the biography, but I suppose in this case it was hard to avoid and shows just what a wild mess John Conway was. Definitely got to know him well, and almost learned some math but I sure wish I could've learned a bit more of the math.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews