The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics

This dictionary is nicely suited for its purpose, i.e., a relatively compact presentation of core terms and concepts. Although this edition is approximately 150 pages longer than the previous edition, its still relatively compact when compared to full size mathematics dictionaries. While not as comprehensive as larger volumes (e.g., the excellent but older Mathematics Dictionary by James and James), this dictionary often provides more concise definitions then its cohorts. Its smaller size means its often quicker to find the terms you want here than in a larger dictionary, and its also a plus if you travel frequently, as it more easily fits into a carry bag or computer case. Its primary weakness is its lack of more comprehensive coverage, occasionally, lacking definitions of even some basic terms. Having more than one mathematics dictionary can provide different perspectives. Thus, although this cannot be recommended as the 'one' mathematics dictionary to own, it can be recommended for use with other dictionaries as a good alternate source for concise definitions.

I picked this book up in graduate school and I have found it to be extremely useful. For example, I used this book not only to gain an understanding of what is meant by "rate of change." But also to understand its usage value in describing various mathematical concepts such as deratives or given quantity x in relation to another quantity y. Really good math writing has a quality of aesthetic perfection that suggests and perhaps rests on a deep physical understanding. In the hands of amatuer or crazed scholars, math writing can stray far from such perfection and into one of two realms: either a boring only-need-know-more-than-the-student teachy-type one or else one of pointless logical competition. Whoever makes the briefest, most accurate statement wins! (Similar to a computer language competition where whoever packs the most instructions into one line of code as judged by an utimately incestuous group of peers wins!) Thankfully, this book is in the former category; it touches upon aesthetic perfection. To me, it's the survival value that it provides. In the sense of usefulness, this book is quite good, quite easy to use. I've had it for 10 years and I quite like it. My understanding of mathematical vocabulary has increased leaps and bounds since buying it. And I would probably give the 3rd edition 5 stars if I had it.

This is a Great revision of this book. I am very pleased to see the improvements over the last version, especially the graphics. Thanks!