Scan barcode
marcelo_fontoura's review against another edition
4.0
Exceptional book. Exceptional in a sense that not too many authors would like to explain a matter so complicated to readers not having a background related to the subject. Also, not many authors would try to do that while actually having a solid background themselves on the subject.
DFW is a great guide to the theories on the infinity. Mind you, it's a book about math, philosophy and logic. It's not a regular non-fiction read, since the idea is much more to really explore and explain the subject than to talk about 'factoids', as DFW puts it. That said, Neil Stephenson really nails it on the Introduction: the book is based on the ideia that you can explain anything to anyone, if you don't take your readers for idiots and really devote yourself. (BTW: said introduction is precious. Explores how the mind of the author works, and the context where it grew, in an admirable way).
It's not a book for understanding every little detail, but to follow the big picture. Sometimes, a given theory may seem too complicated (and they are), but DFW seems to acknowledge that, and remind you: "just hang on, you'll understand why this".
As for DFW's prose, it's beautiful. He mixes flowery language with slangs sometimes in the same sentence, the result being amazing and very fitting.
If you are from a logical/technical/numerical background, I strongly recommend this. If you're from the Humanities (like me), I recommend it if you are interested in learning more about different systems and ways of thought, based on logic. In this sense, it's very mind expanding.
The reason I'm giving 4 stars is because is not for everyone: it can get really heavy sometimes. P.S.: Don't miss the footnotes, some are gems.
DFW is a great guide to the theories on the infinity. Mind you, it's a book about math, philosophy and logic. It's not a regular non-fiction read, since the idea is much more to really explore and explain the subject than to talk about 'factoids', as DFW puts it. That said, Neil Stephenson really nails it on the Introduction: the book is based on the ideia that you can explain anything to anyone, if you don't take your readers for idiots and really devote yourself. (BTW: said introduction is precious. Explores how the mind of the author works, and the context where it grew, in an admirable way).
It's not a book for understanding every little detail, but to follow the big picture. Sometimes, a given theory may seem too complicated (and they are), but DFW seems to acknowledge that, and remind you: "just hang on, you'll understand why this".
As for DFW's prose, it's beautiful. He mixes flowery language with slangs sometimes in the same sentence, the result being amazing and very fitting.
If you are from a logical/technical/numerical background, I strongly recommend this. If you're from the Humanities (like me), I recommend it if you are interested in learning more about different systems and ways of thought, based on logic. In this sense, it's very mind expanding.
The reason I'm giving 4 stars is because is not for everyone: it can get really heavy sometimes. P.S.: Don't miss the footnotes, some are gems.
kundor's review against another edition
2.0
As erroneously titled as the Holy Roman Empire: this book is neither compact, storiful, nor infinite
justinm's review against another edition
3.0
I know most people would think a book on mathematics would be incredibly dry and boring. And they would be right for the majority of books that deal with maths. However, when David Foster Wallace (author of Infinite Jest) is writing the book it is hard not be entertained and at some points to not laugh out loud. While reading this book on the history of infinity I found myself chuckling every few pages or so. It takes a very talented nonfiction writer to be able to do that. It also became clear the DFW understood the audience very well. He knew most of the concepts he was introducing would be new to those who haven't studied advanced mathematics and therefore he included 'emergency glossaries' and IYI (if you're interested) footnotes¹.
Having a reasonable mathematical background, I was finding the book easy to understand and there were many 'ah' parts². And if I were reviewing just the first half of the book I would have given it five stars. But after about the midway point of the book the mathematical terminology just flew over my head. I understood hardly a thing and page flicking³ quickly ensued. I understand DFW did his best to explain the mathematical terms to the layperson but some things (esp. maths) are better learnt in a classroom. It was still an exceptional book for the fist half and if you're looking for a entertaining book on maths, esp. infinity and calculus*^, then this is the book for you.
¹IYI This is what they looked like. He used 30-40 of these, both IYI and non-IYI, in each chapter to clarify concepts or to give extra information on the historical figures. I heard that DFW also used a lot of footnotes in Infinite Jest.
²parts that make you go 'ah'.
³I don't know if anyone else does it but when I'm finding a section difficult to understand I skip to the next chapter in the hope that I will understand that next section. I did do some page skipping and unfortunately it didn't help me in the next chapters because he drew from knowledge learnt in those chapters (which I didn't understand!).
* Actually, only inifinity and calculus.
^ Couldn't find a superscript 4!
Having a reasonable mathematical background, I was finding the book easy to understand and there were many 'ah' parts². And if I were reviewing just the first half of the book I would have given it five stars. But after about the midway point of the book the mathematical terminology just flew over my head. I understood hardly a thing and page flicking³ quickly ensued. I understand DFW did his best to explain the mathematical terms to the layperson but some things (esp. maths) are better learnt in a classroom. It was still an exceptional book for the fist half and if you're looking for a entertaining book on maths, esp. infinity and calculus*^, then this is the book for you.
¹IYI This is what they looked like. He used 30-40 of these, both IYI and non-IYI, in each chapter to clarify concepts or to give extra information on the historical figures. I heard that DFW also used a lot of footnotes in Infinite Jest.
²parts that make you go 'ah'.
³I don't know if anyone else does it but when I'm finding a section difficult to understand I skip to the next chapter in the hope that I will understand that next section. I did do some page skipping and unfortunately it didn't help me in the next chapters because he drew from knowledge learnt in those chapters (which I didn't understand!).
* Actually, only inifinity and calculus.
^ Couldn't find a superscript 4!
dray's review against another edition
3.0
Although the content of this book is a very interesting subject (to me) I experienced it as just out of reach. I found it a little rambling and perhaps too philosophical. At the same time parts were very well written and well thought out.
mugren's review against another edition
2.0
Most of this went over my head. But I’m a fan of Wallace and I enjoy his writing.
lukemosher's review against another edition
3.0
This book took me FOREVER to read...
JK, I'm actually still reading it. It's interesting to see how DFW's mind worked, because he processes everything verbally/through language, even math, where I would have liked to see some actual problems worked to see how the math works. It's like the difference between a math textbook and the dictionary's definition of math terms. What he's writing about isn't incorrect; he's just made it really uninteresting, which is really saying something for DFW. Just one of those books I got 2/3 through and know I'll never finish.
JK, I'm actually still reading it. It's interesting to see how DFW's mind worked, because he processes everything verbally/through language, even math, where I would have liked to see some actual problems worked to see how the math works. It's like the difference between a math textbook and the dictionary's definition of math terms. What he's writing about isn't incorrect; he's just made it really uninteresting, which is really saying something for DFW. Just one of those books I got 2/3 through and know I'll never finish.
olde_fortran's review against another edition
4.0
My enjoyment of this book hinged on two things: a love of David Foster Wallace's writing style and an interest in abstract math. Even with that there was a bit in the middle, dealing with calculus, that was a struggle. Luckily that was a rarity: for the most part the math, though simplified, was easy to follow (but I have an advantage on some of the harder parts here, since I've got some background on set theory and all that).
That all aside (you wouldn't even consider the book if you weren't interested in this stuff) Wallace's style is either going to be the thing that makes you read this or a horrendous turnoff. He's as usually fairly non-linear here with footnotes and interpolations that cut into the flow of the text, but for good reason. Despite anything the author says, the footnotes are mandatory, as are the interpolations.
It's easy to get the sense that this isn't the book Wallace wanted to put out. There's even a footnote that quotes feedback from the editor and refutes it. If you've got enough math background to put you on solid footing through some calc and ZFS set theory you'll be fine and learn a few things alone the way. If you're not, I don't imagine you'd care about this book to begin with. Basically: math- and theory-leaning Computer Science majors, have I got a book for you...
That all aside (you wouldn't even consider the book if you weren't interested in this stuff) Wallace's style is either going to be the thing that makes you read this or a horrendous turnoff. He's as usually fairly non-linear here with footnotes and interpolations that cut into the flow of the text, but for good reason. Despite anything the author says, the footnotes are mandatory, as are the interpolations.
It's easy to get the sense that this isn't the book Wallace wanted to put out. There's even a footnote that quotes feedback from the editor and refutes it. If you've got enough math background to put you on solid footing through some calc and ZFS set theory you'll be fine and learn a few things alone the way. If you're not, I don't imagine you'd care about this book to begin with. Basically: math- and theory-leaning Computer Science majors, have I got a book for you...
ravuri's review against another edition
4.0
Reading other goodreads reviews, I decided I should write something because it seems that the other reviewers are either lazy or illiterate. "Everything and More" is unlike any other "pop" math book I've ever read. Most math books involve the personalities of these mythical math beings with some horrible math analogies sprinkled in to deceive the reader into thinking she is reading a math book rather than a poor biography. DFW does something completely different, actually writing about the intricacies of a math concept (that of infinity), while trying to break down the Hollywood notions of the mathematicians behind the work. Yes, the book is tough to read, and this is probably why it has received mixed reviews. The problem, however, is the underlying math is much harder to understand/enjoy if one decided to take a real analysis course (which is all about these type problems) instead of reading this book.* The book is not perfect (sometimes the frenetic style is a bit much, even for me), but it will be the most rewarding math book you have read.
* IYI(If you're interested) - I suffered through a real analysis course for a while before finding it completely boring and useless. After reading this work, I've decided that these questions are deep and beautiful and I will take another shot at learning this material
* IYI(If you're interested) - I suffered through a real analysis course for a while before finding it completely boring and useless. After reading this work, I've decided that these questions are deep and beautiful and I will take another shot at learning this material