As a data point, the author was interviewed on NPR's "The Indicator"[1], and the way this review summarizes it might not capture what her point was: > CHENG: I

As a data point, the author was interviewed on NPR's "The Indicator"[1], and the way this review summarizes it might not capture what her point was: > CHENG: I'm not trying to answer whether math is real or not. I'm trying to show that considering the question at all leads us to interesting thoughts. And in the end, what I say is that, with all these questions, I don't think there are yes-or-no answers, and we shouldn't claim that there are. What we should do instead is say there is a sense in which - you know, what is the sense in which math is real, and what is the sense in which math isn't real? > And the thing is, I think a lot of people who say math isn't real are using that to say, oh, so it's irrelevant and stupid. Why should we study it? It's made up. And what I want to say is that just because it is made up doesn't mean that it's irrelevant. And actually, the fact that it's kind of made up makes it really powerful because - well, it makes it really, in a way, more accessible because you don't need a lot of money to get it. All you need is an imagination. And I think that's a really amazing thing about it. And just like fiction isn't real, but fiction can give us insights about the world around us to highlight much more, specifically, things about society. And that's what I think is powerful about abstract math as well - because we're not constrained by reality. I haven't read the book, but it seems like the title may be a throwaway question meant to pique the reader's interest and say "let's get philosophical about math". --- [1] https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1193035114 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1193035114