 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It seems that everyone has heard of Knuth's epic masterwork. (Wonder if
he'll ever complete it?) My question is... has anyone here actually read
it? And does it say anything interesting?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/17/2011 13:10, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> has anyone here actually read it?
Yes.
> And does it say anything interesting?
Yes.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/05/2011 11:02 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 5/17/2011 13:10, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> has anyone here actually read it?
>
> Yes.
>
>> And does it say anything interesting?
>
> Yes.
Thank you for your insightful input.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/05/2011 21:10, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> It seems that everyone has heard of Knuth's epic masterwork. (Wonder if
> he'll ever complete it?) My question is... has anyone here actually read
> it? And does it say anything interesting?
Let me put this another way:
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.
I'm wondering whether it's worth reading TAOCP, or whether it's more of
a reference tome.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 24/05/2011 10:10, Invisible a écrit :
> 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.
It helps if you can appreciate the music from Bach (I'm fond of the
harpsichord parts, I just hate them on piano most of the time), as well
as finding interest in the images of Escher.
The Gödel part is at the end (well, middle) and is really deep about
string manipulation. If you are not the kind to double check a
mathematical demonstration in a text but rather skip over it, then it
might be dull. Anyway, GEB is mainly Gödel's theorem for Dummies, with
extra arts and some classical paradoxes.
--
Software is like dirt - it costs time and money to change it and move it
around.
Just because you can't see it, it doesn't weigh anything,
and you can't drill a hole in it and stick a rivet into it doesn't mean
it's free.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/05/2011 09:48, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> It helps if you can appreciate the music from Bach
I play pipe organ. I've spent the last 20 years learning to play BWV 565
from memory. I can also play one or two of the preludes from WTC. And I
keep having these delusions about learning BWV 541.
> as well as finding interest in the images of Escher.
I have Escher on my current calendar. I've always liked his work,
although sometimes I wish it was a bit more colourful.
> The Gödel part is at the end (well, middle) and is really deep about
> string manipulation. If you are not the kind to double check a
> mathematical demonstration in a text but rather skip over it, then it
> might be dull. Anyway, GEB is mainly Gödel's theorem for Dummies, with
> extra arts and some classical paradoxes.
As I understand it, Gödel's theorem just says that everything is
impossible. That doesn't sound especially interesting.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-5-2011 11:22, Invisible wrote:
> As I understand it, Gödel's theorem just says that everything is
> impossible. That doesn't sound especially interesting.
As I understand it it simply says that if you have a language that
allows you to make any interesting statement (like: all X have property
Y) than it is possible to state something that cannot be proved nor
disproved within that language.
You can circumvent that by designing something more powerful, but in
that language even more things can not be proved.
It is interesting for at least two reason:
1) the way he proved it
2) it proved that all work done for centuries by the best mathematicians
to come to a simple and consistent set of axioms was useless.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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've read it three or four times
end to end, finding something new each time. The way the Tortoise bits align
with the text is fascinating. Indeed, the very fact that it's actually two
books, and he tells you that, and it took me three readings to realize it, I
found fascinating.
> 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.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/27/2011 10:18, andrel wrote:
> On 24-5-2011 11:22, Invisible wrote:
>
>> As I understand it, Gödel's theorem just says that everything is
>> impossible. That doesn't sound especially interesting.
>
> As I understand it it simply says that if you have a language that allo
ws
> you to make any interesting statement (like: all X have property Y)
Actually, the statement you need to be able to make is "some X have prope
rty
Y, some don't."
"All X have Y" is not an interesting statement. Just like the halting
problem is trivial for any language in which all programs halt, or no
programs halt.
> It is interesting for at least two reason:
> 1) the way he proved it
> 2) it proved that all work done for centuries by the best mathematician
s to
> come to a simple and consistent set of axioms was useless.
Actually, that would be "consistent and complete". :-)
What *I* find fascinating is that there are actually mathematical problem
s
that are Godel statements that aren't designed to be. I.e., it actually
comes up in practice that you run across statements while investigating a
mathematical topic that you can't prove, but if you use a more powerful
system, it turns out you can prove they're true. There's one that's along
the lines of the old riddle "if an odd number of people shake hands an od
d
number of times..." but expanded to an infinite number of people, which y
ou
can prove is true but unprovable.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
