How should one read a book published almost a century ago on a topic that has advanced by leaps and bounds since? This is the principal question one should have when looking at this book because by modern standards, Mathematics and the Imagination is hardly the ideal popular mathematics book. Its terminology is dated, its language is awkward and the authors tend to use unfortunate racial terminology. To give this book its fair chance, I believe in reading it as a quasi-historical document, much like someone today would read Plato's dialogues. Just like these dialogues are flawed by modern philosophical standards, Mathematics and the Imagination has its issues. Yet, millions around the Earth still read Plato to this day, in hopes of understanding what made his works so important to history, and hopefully, to see how we can still get something out of a book so old. This is the attitude I took when reading Mathematics and the Imagination.
First, let's look at the content of this book. The authors cover a variety of topics from basic stuff like probability and calculus to more advanced topics such as set theory and topology. I believe that some chapters here are much stronger than others but I suspect this to be due to my bias in preference for some mathematical topics over others. I especially liked the topic on "rubber-sheet geometry", also known as topology, which I found to be particularly well written. This chapter explained the basic principles behind one of the most complex topics in mathematics in a way that felt intuitive. Other great chapters include the one on paradoxes (which is actually more like a chapter on curves of pursuit), the chapter on pi, i, and e, and the chapter on non-Euclidean geometry. These chapters show Mathematics and the Imagination at its absolute best, explaining the topics in a clear manner with relevant and well-drawn illustrations. Weaker chapters include the one on the calculus and probability, which are treated in a practically sterile manner. Of course, the hit-and-miss nature of these chapters is a bit exaggerated in this review as the weaker chapters are still enjoyable, if a bit inferior to the other chapters.
Next, it is important to note the influence of this book. Being published in 1940, I can confidently say that Mathematics and the Imagination is criminally unknown for its influence almost a century later. If you've ever used Google, you've been influenced by this book, although indirectly. For the name "Google" comes from the term "googol" which itself was coined by Kasner's nine year old nephew, and popularized by this book. Of course, the term googol is not the only thing we can credit this book with, though it is the most instantly recognizable. Instead, I would credit this book for popularizing books on mathematics written with the layperson in mind. This tradition continues to this day with authors such as Matt Parker. When discussing popularizations of technical topics such as physics and mathematics, there is always a fine line between a book that is too simple to be engaging and too complex to be understandable. I believe that Mathematics and the Imagination set the standard almost a century ago regarding how to strike that balance. While some sections focus too much on the history of mathematics rather than the actual topics at hand, I am glad to notice that this book doesn't shy away from more advanced topics and proofs. The chapter on paradoxes especially impressed me with the way it tackled curves of pursuit such as the tractrix. This is how I believe popularizations should be, covering topics that are interesting in a way that is intellectually engaging. The difference between academic mathematics and popular mathematics should be the choice of topics, not intellectual rigor.
To summarize, I think that while Mathematics and the Imagination is dated by modern standards, it is an essential book in the history of popular mathematics, and its influence should not be understated. However, I don't believe it is a book that everyone must read, not even those interested in mathematics as there are much better, more modern, books on the topic. Instead, if you want to read this book it should be for historical reference, though I do believe that you will get a lot out of it, much like I did. 4/5