Dubious Math in Infinite Jest (2009)
thehowlingfantods.com
Dubious Math in Infinite Jest (2009)
1–10 of 127 posts
Re: Dubious Math in Infinite Jest (2009)
#2> the Mean Value Theorem for integrals is a theoretical tool for proving the existence of this particular x'. It does not, however, offer any method of finding the value of x'. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine how the Mean Value Theorem for integrals could be employed in Pemulis' Eschaton calculations.
Knowing the character, at least this one could be explained as yet another parlour trick from Michael Pemulis. God knows how he actually calculated those values.
Re: Dubious Math in Infinite Jest (2009)
#3> Intentional math errors in David Foster Wallace's work
The actual title of this piece is "Dubious Math in Infinite Jest". There is no suggestion, in the title or the contents, that the errors are intentional. In the author's words:
> As I have said, I have no theories to explain the existence of these errors.
Re: Dubious Math in Infinite Jest (2009)
#4> Intentional math errors in David Foster Wallace's work The actual title of this piece is "Dubious Math in Infinite Jest ". There is no suggestion, in the title or the contents, that the errors are intentional. In the author's words: > As I have said, I have no theories to explain the existence of these errors.
Yes, the title entered here on HN is misleading and misrepresents the actual article.
Re: Dubious Math in Infinite Jest (2009)
#5I look forward to the day another book makes me feel like IJ - even with the mathematical flaws :)
Re: Dubious Math in Infinite Jest (2009)
#6> Intentional math errors in David Foster Wallace's work The actual title of this piece is "Dubious Math in Infinite Jest ". There is no suggestion, in the title or the contents, that the errors are intentional. In the author's words: > As I have said, I have no theories to explain the existence of these errors.
[deleted]
Re: Dubious Math in Infinite Jest (2009)
#7I've seen a theory that the mistakes Pemulis makes are intentional, and signal that he isn't as smart as he thinks and that he doesn't really have everything in control.
I'm not sure; clearly DFW had some math aptitude but these also could have been honest mistakes. Presumably it would have been harder for editors to check these things in the 90s.
The probability error seems harder to explain and likely just a mistake.
Edit - While searching a bit more about this, I found an interesting perspective on a message board:
> The main thing that I think argues for Pemulis not being as smart as he thinks he is, is that he is the analogue of Polonious from Hamlet. In Hamlet, the court jester (the "fool") is actually really wise and always speaks the truth (=Mario), while the King's supposedly "wise" counselor, Polonious, actually gets everything wrong.
I find that pretty compelling. I hadn't really thought about deeper correspondences with Hamlet beyond Hal and his parents.
Re: Dubious Math in Infinite Jest (2009)
#8> Intentional math errors in David Foster Wallace's work The actual title of this piece is "Dubious Math in Infinite Jest ". There is no suggestion, in the title or the contents, that the errors are intentional. In the author's words: > As I have said, I have no theories to explain the existence of these errors.
Yes, the title entered here on HN is misleading and misrepresents the actual article.
[deleted]
Re: Dubious Math in Infinite Jest (2009)
#9> Intentional math errors in David Foster Wallace's work The actual title of this piece is "Dubious Math in Infinite Jest ". There is no suggestion, in the title or the contents, that the errors are intentional. In the author's words: > As I have said, I have no theories to explain the existence of these errors.
You’re right. I’ve just changed the title of the article adding “(un)” to the beginning. I can’t prove the errors are intentional, but given the author’s reputation it would surprise me if they weren’t.
Re: Dubious Math in Infinite Jest (2009)
#10> Again, Mike Pemulis is lecturing Hal, but this time he is helping Hal prepare for the college board exams. Pemulis states that for the function x^n, the derivative is nx + x^(n-1). In fact, the correct expression is nx^(n-1). This, too, may be a typographical error.
Another possibility is that Pemulis is simply bad at math :D