* Andres Valloud <ten@smallinteger.com> [Jun 14. 2020 07:43]:
Hi,
On 6/13/20 04:14, Joerg Arndt wrote:
People who would enjoy J.\ M.\ Borwein, P.\ B.\ Borwein: {Ramanujan and Pi}, Scientific American 256, pp.~112-117, (1988). Reprinted (pp.~588ff) in Lennart Berggren, Jonathan Borwein, Peter Borwein, (eds.): {Pi: A Source Book} Springer-Verlag, (1997)
Do you know if there's some way to look at this article easily? I found an article online,
https://carma.newcastle.edu.au/resources/jon/RAMA125f.pdf
but it doesn't follow it's the one in Scientific American.
It is not. Just grab the whole "Pi source book" from the usual place https://b-ok.cc/book/2317444/1f1104 (big file: 36MB) May not work from computers sharing a gateway with many others (or if your admin or provider plays police).
Note how the "hard stuff" is printed in boxes, using a slightly smaller font than the running text. Why did they not just keep it that way? This, by the way, could have saved the attempt to popularize the "goldbug" paper I mentioned before. With web-based publication one could even turn those boxes into optional elements, "click here for the scary details"-style.
Has anyone asked why they changed? Was there a rationale provided, ever?
People doing hard stuff allowing people with a degree in "dance your name" making decisions, wrongly assuming the latter know anything? I got a T-shirt with "A Grouchy German is a Sour Kraut!" printed on it, so that is sorted (bought in the US, by the way). I do accept that when giving a talk to a general audience one has to dumb things down a lot. But an article? It can be read as often as needed! Best regards, jj
Andres.
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun