On 06/06/2011 04:00 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 5/24/2011 1:10, Invisible wrote:
>> A lot of people seem to think that Godel, Escher, Bach is some kind of
>> iconic master work. After slogging through several chapters of dry, dull
>> text, I eventually became so bored that I stopped reading it.
>
> Wow. I found most of the text fascinating.

I found it increadibly tedious. It's a bit like set theory; it says 
things which are true, and unexpected. But they're not *interesting* 
things. They're tiresome, pedantic hair-splitting things that nobody 
actually cares about.

Complex analysis says "exp(i x) = cos(x) + i sin(x)". That is a 
startlingly unexpected and beautiful result, which leads to all sorts of 
interesting consequences.

Set theory says "X is a subset of X". And, yes, if you want to be 
pedantic about it, A is a subset of B if every element of A is also an 
element of B. And, strictly speaking, by that definition X *is* a subset 
of X. But JESUS CHRIST, how dull is that? Talk about splitting hairs! >_<

>> I'm wondering whether it's worth reading TAOCP, or whether it's more of a
>> reference tome.
>
> It depends on whether you like reading reference tomes. If you thought
> GEB was boring, you're not going to be able to get through TAOCP.

Depends on how it's written, I suppose. I read The TeX Book and liked 
it. I didn't read every page of it, but what I read was quite 
interesting. It depends on whether it's a dry reference listing of every 
fact you could possibly need to know, or an engaging narrative that you 
enjoy reading.

Considering how much dead tree goes into it, I'm guessing it's /slightly 
expensivel/. I wonder if it's available for Kindle? (And if it's any 
cheaper!)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message