5 ms·

I'm surprised by the mathematician's critiques of this book. I have a PhD in math and I read this book about 10 years ago now. I loved it. I'm sure there are so

I'm surprised by the mathematician's critiques of this book. I have a PhD in math and I read this book about 10 years ago now. I loved it. I'm sure there are some inaccuracies, but he gets the overall story correct. There's enough math in the book to be engaging for someone mathematically trained. There's also a lot more history than if you read a math book that just has proofs. And the book is entertaining in the way that DFW's books usually are. As a former mathematician I highly recommend.

lacker 2y ago
I agree. The inaccuracies listed are like, once every few pages the author makes a statement like "P implies Q" without mentioning some minor condition, like, "only if you assume the axiom of choice". Yes, this is annoying for mathematicians, but there's just a fundamental compromise that has to be made. If you spell out every single detail then you will create a book that is not engaging enough to read straight through. I think you will really enjoy this book if, like me, you: 1. Enjoy David Foster Wallace's literary style 2. Have a good mathematical understanding of set theory Unfortunately, the intersection of these two conditions might make for a very small target audience!
- nathan_compton 2y ago
  The axiom of choice isn't exactly some minor condition.
  - ballooney 2y ago
    That’s why you don’t have to explicitly add it as a qualifier at every instance in which it’s implied in your work of non fiction for a general audience.
    - nathan_compton 2y ago
      I think if you aren't deeply concerned with the axiom of choice in your work about infinity for a general audience, then the entire affair is rather farcical. Most of the "weird" stuff about infinity derives from the axiom, after all. A book about infinity, for the lay person in particular, must be in large part a book about the axiom of choice.

lacker 2y ago

I agree. The inaccuracies listed are like, once every few pages the author makes a statement like "P implies Q" without mentioning some minor condition, like, "only if you assume the axiom of choice". Yes, this is annoying for mathematicians, but there's just a fundamental compromise that has to be made. If you spell out every single detail then you will create a book that is not engaging enough to read straight through. I think you will really enjoy this book if, like me, you: 1. Enjoy David Foster Wallace's literary style 2. Have a good mathematical understanding of set theory Unfortunately, the intersection of these two conditions might make for a very small target audience!

nathan_compton 2y ago
The axiom of choice isn't exactly some minor condition.
- ballooney 2y ago
  That’s why you don’t have to explicitly add it as a qualifier at every instance in which it’s implied in your work of non fiction for a general audience.
  - nathan_compton 2y ago
    I think if you aren't deeply concerned with the axiom of choice in your work about infinity for a general audience, then the entire affair is rather farcical. Most of the "weird" stuff about infinity derives from the axiom, after all. A book about infinity, for the lay person in particular, must be in large part a book about the axiom of choice.