Unfortunately this book was a DNF for me. I'm sure people will read and love this book. I, however, could not get into the story. Thank you Netgalley for a copy.

Hard to follow on audiobook, but Sumpter explains this in the audiobook, so good for him.

I appreciate he separates his politics to certain sections, but I'm confused. Sumpter acknowledges his politics could be labeled "woke" and explains why he believes what he does. I appreciate this, good. Then he makes certain claims and then doesn't use the "equations to rule the world" to defend them. Like, this is the perfect chance to show the math of anti-racism, and he only does one time, I think. The times he doesn't stand out as feeling unfinished, like I'm waiting on a paragraph that isn't coming. Maybe this was a decision to keep the topic of the book focused on "not-politics", but then why bring up politics at all?

Overall, a great book, explanations of important equations for social media algorithms, AI, online betting, etc.

This book makes you see how different equations influence the activities in our world. Its an eye opener. Its fun to introduce mathematical concepts application in the real worls, where we are making decisions and the probabilities (there you go.. ) are being viewed, you are applying the math.

I thought this book would be an interesting concept on equations, instead it felt more like a math lesson. Scanned the material in this book but did not finish.

THE TEN EQUATIONS THAT RULE THE WORLD by David Sumpter sounds very interesting, but readers need to be prepared to deal with actual mathematical equations. Numerous variables and exponents are literally there in equations dealing with confidence, influence, learning, and more. While Sumpter, Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Uppsala, Sweden, promises information on "How You Can Use Them, Too," this is a tough read when he has to explain that a vertical line stands for "given" or a dot for multiplication. The mathematical notation is not simple and I honestly cannot envision trying to apply this as he does in the first example regarding likelihood of a plane crash in the event of "worst turbulence you have ever experienced."