Re: Out-of-print math books: An Update

Bart Goddard <goddardbe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bill Dubuque <wgd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in

If you indeed insist that that your math books must
be objects that are some sort of swiss army knife,

More of your silly illogic. You're the one wanting a book
with more "capabilities."

The only thing that's "silly" here is your rejection of math
ebooks for the reasons that they do not smell as nice as
leather-bound books, or they don't look as nice on a shelf,
or that you can't use them to "whump" someone over the head.
Those rank high among some of the most ludicrous arguments
I've encountered in almost 3 decades of online discussion.

You're really nor "resisting change since 1959" - you just like
to whine about the painful process of changing when it's forced
upon you.

At no point in this inane discussion did I decry technology or
change.

Your signature says "Cheerfully resisting change since 1959".
Based on your remarks here, you should word that more strongly.

I'd bet I was writing code (in assembly) while you were still
discovering orafices. Heck, I was the first guy in my county
(and probably in all surrounding counties) to own my own computer.

I've been programming serious mathematics since the late 70's,
when I was a teenage MIT undergrad member of the Macsyma group.
At that time Macsyma was the most sophisticated symbolic math
system in existence. I doubt you did similar around that time.
Around the same time I discovered the first known algorithms
for computing limits and asymptotic analysis, did the first
implementation of the APR primality test (which was more complex
in its pre-Cohen-Lenstra formulation), etc, etc. What did you do
on your toy computer in assembler? The only "orafices" (sic)
evident are the large number of gaping holes in your arguments.

But at no point did I tell everyone around me to burn
all their old toys because this one was better.

Nor did I. It's obvious you're a troll, and not even a very good
one at that. So I won't be replying any further unless you have
something of _mathematical_ substance to say. Almost all of your
sci.math posts seem to be completely devoid of mathematical
content. Have you ever really experienced the beauty of math?
The small percentage of your sci.math posts that have some
math content seem to betray an interest in elementary number
theory. I suggest you study further and learn something about
the beauty of number theory, such as higher reciprocity laws
and class field theory, e.g. David Cox: Primes of the form
x^2 + n y^2. I guarantee you'll find that much more beautiful
than simply staring at your math books lined up on a shelf.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whos better Tom Poore, or this kid?
    ... "Beauty is the first test: there is no permanent place in the world for ugly mathematics." ... Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas. ... "To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... ... Why would the study of math and science hurt the artist? ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)
  • Re: Harvards president apologizes
    ... >10 year old niece who is good with science and math. ... My daughter was interested in engineering and physical science. ... >don't understand current math books. ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: OT: Out of print books
    ... the math books in my senior year. ... I never did pick up Physics and Chemistry, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Teleportation of photons using entanglement
    ... This is essential for quantum information theory (and ... for math books, about 'linear algebra' or 'analytic geometry'. ... Maybe at first it is better to get math schoolbooks from your ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: LAST, IMPORTANT ENCARTA QUESTIONS
    ... I noticed thatit has an online math homework ... > list of math books support Canadian math books as well? ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)