Unilateral evaluation of GEB

Godel, Esher, Bach, the biggest characteristic is that there are many words. Front comments see this: http://book.douban.com/subject/1291204/

Update:After reading more, this book is a well-conceived bad book.If you really want to understand the topic, simply go to the relevant fields to learn it.HoweverThis book is not useless if you want to take a look at the topics related to the horizontal introduction of the PhD program that won the US youth prize,At least the author thinks and writes with the joy of discovery by young people.

Update2: of course, this book is no worse than a hobbyist or math who is really interested in the content. As an amateur, if someone needs to take these things over in a relatively small way, but does not require absolute gains or full misunderstanding, let's talk about the past. It is only difficult for readers who do not know much about the content to discover errors or avoid absorbing the mental burdens brought by the author.

------

After reading another paragraph, the original comment said that only 200 pages would be classic, and this comment is too high now. I feel that the idea of the author of this book is not clearly organized. Maybe this is one of the reasons why he wants to write such a trick.

In view of the high rating of others, if I can continue reading this book (at least this book can be regarded as a useful exchange of ideas), I will continue to record some negative ideas or questions, the purpose is to confirm with other people who actually understand something but have the same idea as me. Please leave a message ~

1. about consistency. I don't know whether the idea of the author is the same as that of others. When he expresses this concept, he introduces an action that he calls "explanation. First, I think it is redundant to elaborate on these concepts. Even if this action is introduced, the author actually makes the problem more complex rather than clearer.

I personally tend to think that consistency should be more strictly defined. The reason why his example depends on the action of "interpretation" is that it does not put the content implied by the "interpretation" into the example.
Expression to form the principle, public or rules. Due to such a problem, the value of these long articles is quite limited: I feel that they are more like beginners who want to understand these concepts in their minds.
Rather than being able to spread knowledge as relatively reliable.

What I want to talk about is that when it comes to such basic logic thinking, I cannot say that my current point of view must be correct. Therefore, for book reviews, I am more concerned about whether he really wants to clarify the problems he wants to clarify. In this regard, I think he may be trying but not qualified. At least so before proving the necessity of "interpretation.

2.
Recursion. His understanding of recursion is confusing. For example, in the first sentence of chapter 5, "recursion is nesting ". His first recursive description is to press the stack out of the stack, although the stack out of the stack can be simulated according to certain rules.
Recursion, but there is no evidence that in all real or abstract worlds, the subset of a stack-out mode is equivalent to or even equivalent to the recursion he refers. The Operations described as "recursion" are regarded as a result of recursion.
.

* Similar problems exist widely in research, academic books, articles, and papers. Beiling machine and Qiu Qi's lambda operations, such as deterministic push-down machine and recursive descent with the same capabilities
Algorithms and LR algorithms. I also often express the "equivalence" between DPDA and LR, but this is only in a very limited context in reality. It is often found that these traditionally considered "equivalent" things are in practice
It involves different aspects and thus has different application scenarios.

* I personally tend to think that this difference is not just a compromise on reality, but a bigger one. The equivalent two are fundamentally different. According to the author of GEB, the two are only "homogeneous" in a "interpretation. Analogy is certainly helpful for understanding, but unlimitedly similar analogy can also bring confusion.

The above two paragraphs of the Star (*) are skipped. Well, I feel that I have no courage to read it. Some people may think that these things are harmless, but if the book is very good and contains the "masterpiece" that many authors think about, I have explained all the primary arithmetic mistakes... at this level discussed by the authors of this book, these mistakes cannot be made.

I also want to see it because he does know something I don't know whether he really understands it or not. But I began to wonder if he wrote something that I was not familiar with, such as music, genetics, or something, too? If you are misled, this reading is too worthless.

------

Previous comments:

I was disappointed that this book won a prize such as proce, which made me feel that 9 Cheng is a science. What makes me have a glimmer of hope is that this person seems to be engaged in mathematics. It turns out that these two judgments are indeed very accurate.

If this book has only 200 pages and only focuses on the core content, it will be a classic book (Update: the author may not really figure out all the things he said, see the above Update ). Now, my only feeling is chicken ribs: Reading It is excited because of its loose, and without reading it, this book is indeed the accumulation of the author's thinking, and there is a mixture of valuable content in the middle, these paragraphs are easy to understand. The worst thing is that the author thinks that he has cleverly designed a main reading line. As a reader, if he turns to a page at will, the context is lacking.

Specifically, this book is not practical. I have been saying that truly creative people cannot really read a group of books (especially this ), in this way, he will spend a large amount of time and energy on the one hand (it is not easy to really understand any piece of work); on the other hand, even if he has the right, he will inadvertently carry a variety of mental burdens: it is not that easy to get rid of these burdens (or even realize their existence.

People's values come from commonalities and personalities. The commonality should be the inheritance of the common knowledge; the personality lies in the unique information encoding of this person. This book has low knowledge density and too many background noises. It is too polluted and enlightening, but not very strong.

I thought it was the self-confidence of the author that destroyed a good science book. But as the author cited the Latin saying: "taste does not need to be argued ".