> I can absolutely not recommend a book about a critical topic, which contains that kind of defects. I think your definition of formal proofs is a bit differen

> I can absolutely not recommend a book about a critical topic, which contains that kind of defects. I think your definition of formal proofs is a bit different from Alan Downey's (who incidentally has also written an entire book on Complexity and the Philosophy of science[1]). Providing a formal proof for even a 'simple' algorithm is incredibly wasteful in the context of the example in which the statement is made. Perhaps you should read the book before calling out it's 'defects'. [1] http://greenteapress.com/complexity/index.html http://greenteapress.com/complexity/index.html More of Alan's books at: http://greenteapress.com/ http://greenteapress.com/