These days I'm re-reading a book on the history of math I had read ages ago.

The aim of the book is to present an overview of current (at the time it was written, in the 1970s, plus an appendix from the 1990s) modern math and it's pretty good at it (that's the reason why it was recommended to me when I was in high school and my math teacher found out I had plans to study math at the university).

Because of this, it is reasonable that it's skipping all math development from cultures that didn't have a direct influence on modern math: it claims so in the introduction, apparently recognizing that those developments were significant, just outside the scope.

But then, every. single. time. the author gives a judgement on something, it's cringeworthy. When the europeans in 1600 and 1700 developed calculus with no formal basis and without even recognizing the need for one it was liberating; when arabs did the same with algebra it was a lack of formal capabilities. No. just no. did you even *read* what you're writing???

Luckily, most of the book is maths and that part is enjoyable, I should just skip the end of most chapters…