Live data from Hacker News

Infinite Proofs: The Effects of Mathematics on David Foster Wallace (2012)

lareviewofbooks.org

21–30 of 46 posts

Re: Infinite Proofs: The Effects of Mathematics on David Foster Wallace (2012)

#21
post #2

Here is the book on Infinity DFW penned: https://www.amazon.com/Everything-More-Compact-History-Infin...

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 wa…

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!

Re: Infinite Proofs: The Effects of Mathematics on David Foster Wallace (2012)

#22
while I haven't read DFW, it was because I was suspicious of his motives even in the 90s. the article leads with how he studied "modal logic," as an undergrad, which I only know of as a tool from a theorist named Kripke to reason about systems of logic that don't need external consistency or to produce arithmetic. it was taught in cultural studies programs as a justifying rhetorical "what-aboutism" for neutralizing appeals to logic, a kind of critical theory of math to unmoor people from the authority of math or anything objective, and to guide them to adopting subjectivity. What made me suspicious of DFW was he seemed to be doing just another variation of what L. Ron Hubbard, Richard Wagner, Karl Marx, Osho, Nietzche, and other attempted inventors of religions were up to, and Kripke's modal logics are a tool for producing these logics-of-ideas, a way of writing new pop-ideologies the way we write songs. DFW seemed like a hipster demagogue to me.

another artist whose work may be more rigorous in representing ideas from math is Arvo Pârt. even though there are more concrete things in his work than DFWs that you can logically decode, derive, and then transform and expand on them, much of what I've read[1] is still a bunch of woo that uses talking about "math" as a kind of mystical jibjab to elevate other ideas. Pärt worked as a sound and radio engineer and there is some reason to believe he used that practical knowledge in composing, because the logic in the music is very explicit. (visible triangles and linear functions, he has provided sketches of, etc)

there's a difference between writing something that is a metaphor for a mathematical idea as a vehicle for something else, and something that directly encodes the idea where you could derive it again from the thing you've produced. Maybe DFW did that with the Sierpinksi gasket, but I don't get the sense from anyone that he did. I am not a mathematician at all, but I do think if the idea is not independent of the language or representation it's made in, it's just another metaphor and a vehicle for the author.

[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-companion-to-...

Re: Infinite Proofs: The Effects of Mathematics on David Foster Wallace (2012)

#23
I haven't read the The Pale King, but I absolutely love the reading of this excerpt from the book. The protagonist recalls a speech by his substitute teacher in the Advanced Tax course - https://youtu.be/sJXrXf-0yoQ (10mins. no math). I do hope to tackle the book one day.

Re: Infinite Proofs: The Effects of Mathematics on David Foster Wallace (2012)

#24

while I haven't read DFW, it was because I was suspicious of his motives even in the 90s. the article leads with how he studied "modal logic," as an undergrad, which I only know of as a tool from a theorist named Kripke to reason about systems of logic that don't need external consistency or to produce arithmetic. it was taught in cultural studies programs as a justifying rhetorical "what-aboutism" for neutralizing a…

What on earth are you talking about Saul Kripke and modal logic being some kind of cultural studies tool for “unmooring people from the authority of math”? And your lumping of Wagner, Marx, and Nietszche with Hubbard and Osho as “inventors of religions” is baffling.

Re: Infinite Proofs: The Effects of Mathematics on David Foster Wallace (2012)

#25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Wallace had depression and anxiety since adolescence (i.e. well before any reported psychedelic use). Pretty inappropriate and irresponsible framing you've picked here!

[flagged]

Re: Infinite Proofs: The Effects of Mathematics on David Foster Wallace (2012)

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wallace had depression and anxiety since adolescence (i.e. well before any reported psychedelic use). Pretty inappropriate and irresponsible framing you've picked here!

[flagged]

It's a tricky one.

Depression often can lead to poor choices or life paths that would be better navigated if not depressed.

"Engaged with drugs" could be substituted with "compulsively gambled" or even "collected and obsessively arranged bottlecaps" in some cases. These are behaviours that can be used to avoid deeper issues behind depression which can persist and lead to bad outcomes regardless of the behaviour.

Re: Infinite Proofs: The Effects of Mathematics on David Foster Wallace (2012)

#27

while I haven't read DFW, it was because I was suspicious of his motives even in the 90s. the article leads with how he studied "modal logic," as an undergrad, which I only know of as a tool from a theorist named Kripke to reason about systems of logic that don't need external consistency or to produce arithmetic. it was taught in cultural studies programs as a justifying rhetorical "what-aboutism" for neutralizing a…

Modal logic is a pretty rigorous branch of logic.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/

Re: Infinite Proofs: The Effects of Mathematics on David Foster Wallace (2012)

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to note for the HN crowd that the book is in the "just technical enough to inform yet not scare off the layman, but not technical enough for the practitioner" nonfiction subgenre. Critically, there are a number of finer details that DFW gets wrong; if you're mathematically inclined and intend to read this, I suggest pairing it with a printed copy of Prabhakar Ragde's errata document hosted by the DFW fansite T…

This. He tries to do a few epsilon delta proofs and completely gets the concept wrong. I’m surprised an editor did not stop this. If he can’t understand a limit it really puts a question mark on whether it’s worth reading his insight into the subject.

Why would his editor know any more about it than he did?

Re: Infinite Proofs: The Effects of Mathematics on David Foster Wallace (2012)

#29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. He tries to do a few epsilon delta proofs and completely gets the concept wrong. I’m surprised an editor did not stop this. If he can’t understand a limit it really puts a question mark on whether it’s worth reading his insight into the subject.

Why would his editor know any more about it than he did?

I would expect them to have someone with at least an undergrad in math look over the math. Editor would help identify that

Re: Infinite Proofs: The Effects of Mathematics on David Foster Wallace (2012)

#30
There's quite a lot of mathematical mistakes (obvious ones, even) in DFWs work. I'm not sure whether it's intentional or not, but given that he also makes mistakes in his nonfiction it might just be that he's not a great mathematician.

Like in TPK, 0/0 is Infinity and in IJ, Pemulis explains differentiation completely incorrectly, also that stuff about the mean value theorem is irrelevant?!?

Still one of the greatest authors; deep technical correctness is more of a Pynchon thing.

Post reply on HN