Scan barcode
ineffablebob's review against another edition
challenging
informative
slow-paced
4.0
From the ancient Greeks to calculus to modern set theory, Everything and More traces where concepts of infinity have impacted major developments in math theory. Negatively, in many cases, preventing progress until someone came along who was able and willing to include infinite concepts in their view of the math world. Wallace includes both the history of how things changed as new ideas and methods were developed, and an explanation of those concepts in enough detail to understand. Yet it's not so detailed as to overwhelm the layman, which is quite the balancing act.
I have an bachelor's degree in mathematics (and computer science), but it has been a good 20 years since I did any formal studying in the area, and even when I was spending time every day on this stuff it was mostly in the area of discrete math. Which made the format of Everything and More perfect for me, as Wallace takes pains to explain the concepts and jargon as he goes along, such that someone without the background (or like me, who has forgotten much of it) can keep up. He also keeps the tone of the book light, for the most part, which helps when the concepts are complicated and one might be tempted to give up...the author is usually right there with an encouraging word or additional example to keep you going. I'll admit that I did not absorb everything in this first reading - I was able to understand as Wallace explained things, but it would take several more readings to really get all the ways that everything ties together, not to mention how much deeper you could go with many of the sources in the bibliography. I may very well pick this one up again, months or years down the line, and see what additional understanding I can glean.
Here are two quotes that I feel sum up the tone and direction nicely:
- from section 2d: "All of which is just resoundingly weird." This could describe a large number of the concepts covered!
- from section 7c: "The proof is both ingenious and beautiful - a total confirmation of art's compresence in pure math." The author's admiration for the accomplishments of the mathematicians really does come through, all the way through the book.
I have an bachelor's degree in mathematics (and computer science), but it has been a good 20 years since I did any formal studying in the area, and even when I was spending time every day on this stuff it was mostly in the area of discrete math. Which made the format of Everything and More perfect for me, as Wallace takes pains to explain the concepts and jargon as he goes along, such that someone without the background (or like me, who has forgotten much of it) can keep up. He also keeps the tone of the book light, for the most part, which helps when the concepts are complicated and one might be tempted to give up...the author is usually right there with an encouraging word or additional example to keep you going. I'll admit that I did not absorb everything in this first reading - I was able to understand as Wallace explained things, but it would take several more readings to really get all the ways that everything ties together, not to mention how much deeper you could go with many of the sources in the bibliography. I may very well pick this one up again, months or years down the line, and see what additional understanding I can glean.
Here are two quotes that I feel sum up the tone and direction nicely:
- from section 2d: "All of which is just resoundingly weird." This could describe a large number of the concepts covered!
- from section 7c: "The proof is both ingenious and beautiful - a total confirmation of art's compresence in pure math." The author's admiration for the accomplishments of the mathematicians really does come through, all the way through the book.
jodyjsperling's review against another edition
4.0
What can I say? Only Wallace could make math this abstract that interesting. I loved it.
rysuraski's review against another edition
2.0
His worst. And that's with me LOVING pop science and DFW. Was this even edited?
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.