[math-fun] Steven Krantz's review of A New Kind of Science
Just *too* amusing. This is going to appear in the AMS Bulletin in Jan 2003, apparently. http://www.math.wustl.edu/~sk/wolfram.pdf Thane Plambeck 650 321 4884 office 650 323 4928 fax http://www.qxmail.com/home.htm
----- Original Message ----- From: Thane Plambeck To: math-fun@mailman.xmission.com Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:58 AM Subject: [math-fun] Steven Krantz's review of A New Kind of Science Just *too* amusing. This is going to appear in the AMS Bulletin in Jan 2003, apparently. http://www.math.wustl.edu/~sk/wolfram.pdf Thane Plambeck 650 321 4884 office 650 323 4928 fax http://www.qxmail.com/home.htm Krantz is appropriately critical but failed to mention the book's absolutely atrocious style, which combines execrable writing with the apparent attitude that the general public (whom he imagines will be interested) must be written down to patronizingly. Granted, the public loves Bush so can't be very bright, but stupidity isn't enough of a qualification to be interested in ANKOS. Krantz uses the word hubris in connection with SW but "self-worship" is more accurate. I also find serious flaw with the book's layout, which uniquely combines wide, wasteful page margins with ultra-tiny diagrams and print. All in all, a miserably botched job. (I'm a Mathematica user.)
Steve Gray and/or <mailto:thane@best.com>Thane Plambeck [...] Granted, the public loves Bush so can't be very bright, but stupidity isn't enough of a qualification to be interested in ANKOS.
I'm not sure which of you is responsible for this, but, though no fan of ANKOS, I find this kind of gratuitous commentary highly offensive and inappropriate for this forum. Please desist. Thanks!
Speaking of reviews of ANKOS. Here's a review by Lawrence Gray that is somewhat more substantial than Kranz's review: www.math.umn.edu/~gray/pdf/wolfram.pdf (This is to appear in the February 2003 Notices of the American Mathematical Society. Note: the figures are not yet available.) And by the way, does anyone know if Mathew Cook's proof of the universality of CA 110 (as presented in ANKOS) has been verified by workers in the area? --Edwin Clark
I myself reviewed Wolfram's book in the publication Computing in Science and Engineering, August 2002 issue. It is available on my website if any of you would like to read it: http://www.nersc.gov/~dhbailey/dhbpapers/dhb-wolfram.pdf David H Bailey Edwin Clark wrote:
Speaking of reviews of ANKOS. Here's a review by Lawrence Gray that is somewhat more substantial than Kranz's review:
www.math.umn.edu/~gray/pdf/wolfram.pdf
At 12:58 AM -0800 11/20/02, Thane Plambeck wrote:
<http://www.math.wustl.edu/~sk/wolfram.pdf>http://www.math.wustl.edu/ ~sk/wolfram.pdf
One could probably write an entire Ph.D. dissertation in the sociology of science on why Krantz would write: For instance, Rule 30 says (page 27) "take the new color of the cell to be whatever the previous color of its left-hand neighbor was." It is astonishing to me that the entire function of the universe -- from the creation of the Mona Lisa to my current state of dyspepsia -- emanates from a rule such as this. Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: Paul R. Pudaite To: math-fun@mailman.xmission.com Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:26 PM Subject: Re: [math-fun] Steven Krantz's review of A New Kind of Science At 12:58 AM -0800 11/20/02, Thane Plambeck wrote: <http://www.math.wustl.edu/~sk/wolfram.pdf>http://www.math.wustl.edu/~sk/wolfram.pdf One could probably write an entire Ph.D. dissertation in the sociology of science on why Krantz would write: For instance, Rule 30 says (page 27) "take the new color of the cell to be whatever the previous color of its left-hand neighbor was." It is astonishing to me that the entire function of the universe -- from the creation of the Mona Lisa to my current state of dyspepsia -- emanates from a rule such as this. Paul No, your state of dyspepsia emanates from the CORRECT statement of rule 30, which is sufficiently complex to explain everyting from quarks to sociology, not to mention shit and Shinola.
At 6:34 PM -0800 11/20/02, Steve Gray wrote:
No, your state of dyspepsia emanates from the CORRECT statement of rule 30, which is sufficiently complex to explain everyting from quarks to sociology, not to mention shit and Shinola.
I'm not sure what gave rise to Krantz's state of dyspepsia (my digestion is just fine, thank you), but what's amusing are some ironic perspectives on the passage from Krantz's review that I quoted. In his review, Krantz states that he is "accustomed to a form of discourse that involves carefully formulated statements of assertions ..." and that he likes "to see carefully chosen examples that illustrate the key ideas." If we were to regard what Krantz has written as carefully formulated, he appears to be astonished that "the entire function of the universe ... emanates from a rule such as" right translation. Or more generously, that he is astonished that Wolfram would argue this. Of course, it's obvious that the quote Krantz has chosen does not correctly describe Rule 30. In order to accomodate the claim of careful formulation, it is conceivable that Krantz does not believe his quotation must imply that Rule 30 = "right translation". If so, what is he trying to say? One possibility is that Krantz sincerely believes that interposing "such as" permits him to associate but not equate Rule 30 with a simpler cellular automaton in order to enhance the rhetorical force of his presentation. But it's most likely the case that Krantz should quote a complete description of Rule 30. Turning from Krantz to his audience, why is it so easy to overlook this discrepancy? Paul
participants (6)
-
David H Bailey -
Edwin Clark -
Marc LeBrun -
Paul R. Pudaite -
Steve Gray -
Thane Plambeck