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

Post by nathan_compton » Sat, Aug 10, 2024, 9:11 AM UTC

lacker wrote: post #21

will-burner wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thro…

Post by qqj » Sat, Aug 10, 2024, 10:25 AM UTC

motohagiography wrote: post #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 a…

Post by pastrami_panda » Sat, Aug 10, 2024, 12:02 PM UTC

heraldgeezer wrote: post #20

I loved the movie "The end of the tour" https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3416744/ Would like to read but I dont know math. I am also too addicted. I have had a book on my shelf for 2 years unread. I listen to 1h of audio book and I love it and then I stop and loose the plot. oh well.

Post by kylebenzle » Sat, Aug 10, 2024, 1:25 PM UTC

citizen_friend wrote: post #29

whatshisface wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Post by motohagiography » Sat, Aug 10, 2024, 2:18 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #27

motohagiography wrote: post #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 a…

Modal logic is a pretty rigorous branch of logic. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/