Out-of-print math books: An Update
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
information about the demand for various out-of-print math books. Klaus
Schmid promptly set up http://outofprintmath.blogspot.com
The site is just a prototype so it is rather klunky, but I believe it
already provides valuable information. As a result of the site, I learned
that Cassels and Frohlich (Algebraic Number Theory) was out of print and
very much in demand, and that David Savitt had made an unsuccessful attempt
ten years ago to bring it back into print. David and I, working together,
managed to get the American Mathematical Society interested in reprinting
it. The copyright situation is complicated so there is no guarantee, but
I am optimistic.
Two other books listed on the site that are likely to come back into print
are "Matching Theory" by Lovasz and Plummer and "Matroid Theory" by Dominic
Welsh.
If you like the idea of this site, then here is my suggestion for how you
can help. Pick a book on the site---either one you personally like, or
one that has a lot of votes (click on "statistics" at the bottom of the
main page)---and then find out who has the rights to the book. In many
cases this will be either the author or the publisher. Then try to
persuade the copyright holder to make the book available.
A common obstacle will be that the publisher holds the rights but does
not think it will be profitable to republish the book. In that case
you can try to persuade the publisher to hand the rights back to the
author (if the author is still alive) or over to a national mathematical
society.
The results of your efforts can be posted as a comment on Schmid's site
so that others will be able to benefit from them, even if you are not
fully successful.
The above procedure is essentially what I did with Cassels and Frohlich.
It may sound like a lot of work, but it isn't really; it just requires
some persistence.
--
Tim Chow tchow-at-alum-dot-mit-dot-edu
The range of our projectiles---even ... the artillery---however great, will
never exceed four of those miles of which as many thousand separate us from
the center of the earth. ---Galileo, Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences
MoeBlee
'Recursive Functions' by Peter.
MoeBlee
Alex Plantema
> Not long ago I suggested the possibility of a website for collecting
> information about the demand for various out-of-print math books.
> Klaus Schmid promptly set up http://outofprintmath.blogspot.com
Nice initiative, but that page is more complicated than necessary, slow and hard to handle.
Why should votes against a book be counted, and why should I vote when I don't or barely need a book?
If I don't vote, I don't need to give a reason either. There are zillions of books I'm not looking for.
Make it simple: put a single checkbox in front of each title and one button at the end of the page and count the votes.
Recently I found that a title I was looking for since 1987,
Computer approximations by J.F. Hart et al., is available in print again.
--
Alex.
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
Alex Plantema <al...@nl.invalid> wrote:
>Nice initiative, but that page is more complicated than necessary, slow
>and hard to handle.
Thanks for the feedback...I'll pass it on to Klaus.
We know that the site is not well-designed, but wanted to get something up
quickly as a proof of concept. I think the ideal situation is for a large
bookselling site to incorporate the concept into their site. However, I
have not had much luck with that angle yet.
Angus Rodgers
>I think the ideal situation is for a large
>bookselling site
... mentioning no names! ... ;-)
>to incorporate the concept into their site.
--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
Angus Rodgers <twi...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On 05 Oct 2008 18:23:44 GMT, tc...@lsa.umich.edu wrote:
>>I think the ideal situation is for a large
>>bookselling site
>
>... mentioning no names! ... ;-)
I wasn't being coy; Amazon isn't the only possibility. There's Alibris,
Bookfinder, Barnes & Noble, AddAll, .... Even Google Books, although they
don't sell books. I got BooksPrice and Fetchbook.Info somewhat interested
in the concept, though I don't know if they'll actually implement it.
Bill Dubuque
>
> Not long ago I suggested the possibility of a website for collecting
> information about the demand for various out-of-print math books. Klaus
> Schmid promptly set up http://outofprintmath.blogspot.com
As an alternative, effort would be better spent on ensuring
such books make it into the scan queue of the various programs
that are scanning books. That way publishers can offer online
copies at minimal cost and, until then, one can search the
books and view limited previews. Since hardcopy books will
soon be dinosaurs, why waste effort on such?
--Bill Dubuque
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
I have no objection to your proposal---it is a good one---except for your
suggestion that there is something incompatible between making a book
available electronically and making a book available in hardcopy.
The debate about hardcopy books versus electronic books can sometimes
take on a partisan character, reminiscent of partisan religious or political
debates. Your comments above are a good example of the kind of partisanship
that I'm referring to. While I have no problems with someone spending effort
trying to make a book available either electronically or in hardcopy, I do
object if someone tries to *impede* efforts on the other side of the partisan
divide.
Bill Dubuque
>Bill Dubuque <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>>tc...@lsa.umich.edu writes:
>>>
>>> Not long ago I suggested the possibility of a website for collecting
>>> information about the demand for various out-of-print math books. Klaus
>>> Schmid promptly set up http://outofprintmath.blogspot.com
>>
>> As an alternative, effort would be better spent on ensuring
>> such books make it into the scan queue of the various programs
>> that are scanning books. That way publishers can offer online
>> copies at minimal cost and, until then, one can search the
>> books and view limited previews. Since hardcopy books will
>> soon be dinosaurs, why waste effort on such?
>
> I have no objection to your proposal---it is a good one---except for your
> suggestion that there is something incompatible between making a book
> available electronically and making a book available in hardcopy.
Incompatible, why would you think that? Certainly one could
simultaneously pursue both approaches.
> The debate about hardcopy books versus electronic books can sometimes
> take on a partisan character, reminiscent of partisan religious or political
> debates. Your comments above are a good example of the kind of partisanship
> that I'm referring to. While I have no problems with someone spending effort
> trying to make a book available either electronically or in hardcopy, I do
> object if someone tries to *impede* efforts on the other side of the partisan
> divide.
Indeed, such is the nature of technological (r)evolution. Debates
still rage about vinyl records vs. cd vs mp3, analog vs. digital
amplifiers, projectors, etc. There will always be those who cling
to the past for whatever reasons. I'm ecstatic that I can carry
around my entire library in my pocket. Whenever a spark of intuition
strikes, I can access whatever information I need in seconds, not
hours, days, or months. I can rapidly search millions of documents
to recall long-forgotten ideas from decades ago; locate related
work; find definitions, translate foreign language texts, etc, etc.
So, seriously, why do you prefer paper media, which lack all these
capabilities and many more?
--Bill Dubuque
outofprintmath
> [...]
> Why should votes against a book be counted, and why should I vote when I don't or barely need a book?
All votings are optional and independent from each other. There might
be many reasons, why you don't need a book. You can promote your
reason for or against a book by posting a comment below the
corresponding voting. Comments are optional, but they might help to
promote your vote.
> Make it simple: put a single checkbox in front of each title and
> one button at the end of the page and count the votes.
If several items are defined in one voting at one time, no further
items can be added later. I think this is appropriate, because
pressing the vote button for a list of items normally has a different
meaning.
I am aware that the current voting list is kludge and the loading
behaviour, depending on your environment, could be better. Using
Firefox it is still acceptable for me and I am working to reduce the
voting list to improve the visibility and promotion of the most
promising items. See also my comment about cleanup on the Discussion
subpage.
Please note also, that there is no need to scan the list repeatedly
for new book submissions, the newest are always on top of the list and
all new comments including new book submissions are listed on
http://outofprintmath-comments.blogspot.com/.
Thank you for this and any further suggestions.
-- Klaus Schmid
Angus Rodgers
<outofpr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>I am aware that the current voting list is kludge and the loading
>behaviour, depending on your environment, could be better. Using
>Firefox it is still acceptable for me
Using Firefox (2.0.0.17), it crashes my poor old Win98SE system.
Poor and old it may be, but that system is pretty stable in most
respects. Loading this page, it runs completely out of system
resources, bad things happen, and I have to reboot. Not always,
but usually.
>Thank you for this and any further suggestions.
And thank you for providing the service.
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
Bill Dubuque <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>So, seriously, why do you prefer paper media, which lack all these
>capabilities and many more?
While I don't consider myself a partisan of either side, the main advantage I
see of paper media is that it is much more likely to last 500 years once it's
on the shelf, even if nobody is interested in it.
In an ideal world, all electronic documents are upgraded whenever the de
factor standard format changes. In the real world, only the high-priority
items get this treatment.
The other reason, in the current context, for pursuing paper publication is
that I can get the results much sooner. Assuming all goes well, I should
have a new copy of Welsh's book by next summer. The infrastructure for
electronic books isn't in place yet for that. This may change in the future,
of course, but it's the reality today, and I want the book as quickly and
cheaply as possible.
toni.l...@gmail.com
> The other reason, in the current context, for pursuing paper publication is
> that I can get the results much sooner. Assuming all goes well, I should
> have a new copy of Welsh's book by next summer. The infrastructure for
> electronic books isn't in place yet for that. This may change in the future,
> of course, but it's the reality today, and I want the book as quickly and
> cheaply as possible.
The infrastructure is in place and has been for years, but the
entrenched
old school publishers have destroyed every e-book format with
excessive
limitations and awkward user experience. Talk about partisanship.
For the record I have yet to meet a person who, given a hardcopy and a
PDF scan of a book, didn't prefer to keep hold of the PDF instead of
the hardcopy.
John M. Gamble
That would entirely depend upon the book, and the person. PDF reading
is still not a comfortable experience.
Academic papers on the other hand, tend to be more convenient in PDF
form.
--
-john
February 28 1997: Last day libraries could order catalogue cards
from the Library of Congress.
herbzet
Bill Dubuque wrote:
> So, seriously, why do you prefer paper media, which lack all these
> capabilities and many more?
1) Don't need batteries.
2) Won't break if dropped.
3) Recognizable from their cover.
4) Like the smell.
--
hz
Ben Pfaff
5) Much more convenient for reading in bed.
6) Don't take up valuable on-screen real estate.
--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil."
--D. E. Knuth, "Structured Programming with go to Statements"
Bart Goddard
news:87y711y...@blp.benpfaff.org:
> herbzet <her...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Bill Dubuque wrote:
>>> So, seriously, why do you prefer paper media, which lack all these
>>> capabilities and many more?
>>
>> 1) Don't need batteries.
>> 2) Won't break if dropped.
>> 3) Recognizable from their cover.
>> 4) Like the smell.
>
> 5) Much more convenient for reading in bed.
> 6) Don't take up valuable on-screen real estate.
7) Can snap shut with satisfying "whump" when idiot
won't quit interrupting you while you're trying to read.
8) Can "whump" idiot's head solidly when he doesn't get
the hint above.
9) Can read on airplane during take-off and landing
(unless idiot insists on talking to you.)
10) Often the mere sight of a _book_ will drive idiots off.
(It messes with their Ipods or something.)
11) Devoid of "OMG" and "UR" and other such idiot-speak.
12) I like leather.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Angus Rodgers
<godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
13) There is space in the margins to write "I have a marvellous
proof of this theorem", and other useful annotations (in pencil,
of course).
herbzet
Ben Pfaff wrote:
> "Premature optimization is the root of all evil."
> --D. E. Knuth, "Structured Programming with go to Statements"
Yeah, my girlfriend says that, too.
--
hz
Bill Dubuque
>Bill Dubuque <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> So, seriously, why do you prefer paper media, which lack all these
>> capabilities and many more?
>
> While I don't consider myself a partisan of either side, the main advantage
> I see of paper media is that it is much more likely to last 500 years once
> it's on the shelf, even if nobody is interested in it.
My experience is the opposite. As I mentioned here, some recently
purchased Springer books fell apart quite quickly. Otoh, I've
used electronic texts without problems over 3 decades.
> In an ideal world, all electronic documents are upgraded whenever the de
> factor standard format changes. In the real world, only the high-priority
> items get this treatment.
I've accumulated many thousands of electronic texts over 3 decades
and I've never encountered any major problems. What format did you
have problems with?
> The other reason, in the current context, for pursuing paper publication is
> that I can get the results much sooner. Assuming all goes well, I should
> have a new copy of Welsh's book by next summer. The infrastructure for
> electronic books isn't in place yet for that. This may change in the future,
> of course, but it's the reality today, and I want the book as quickly and
> cheaply as possible.
Why would it be quicker and cheaper to reprint in paper vs. electronic?
(esp. given that many entities are now scanning books for free).
If you want something fast simply scan or photograph it and
feed it to an any2djvu server to convert it to djvu and ocr it.
The result is a very small document that can be quickly read
and searched even on very slow machines (*much* better than pdf).
This has already been done for many math books: search for the
author/title along with djvu and you'll often find links to sites
such as rapidshare or depositfiles or various russian servers.
--Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
>>> herbzet <her...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Bill Dubuque wrote:
>>>>> So, seriously, why do you prefer paper media,
>>>>> which lack all these capabilities and many more?
>>>>
>>>> 1) Don't need batteries.
>>>> 2) Won't break if dropped.
>>>> 3) Recognizable from their cover.
>>>> 4) Like the smell.
>>>
>>> 5) Much more convenient for reading in bed.
>>> 6) Don't take up valuable on-screen real estate.
>>
>>7) Can snap shut with satisfying "whump" when idiot
>>won't quit interrupting you while you're trying to read.
>>
>>8) Can "whump" idiot's head solidly when he doesn't get
>>the hint above.
>>
>>9) Can read on airplane during take-off and landing
>>(unless idiot insists on talking to you.)
>>
>>10) Often the mere sight of a _book_ will drive idiots off.
>>(It messes with their Ipods or something.)
>>
>>11) Devoid of "OMG" and "UR" and other such idiot-speak.
>>
>>12) I like leather.
>
> 13) There is space in the margins to write "I have a marvellous
> proof of this theorem", and other useful annotations (in pencil,
> of course).
Of the above 13, that seems to be the only (semi)serious one.
However, almost all modern ebook reader software supports
annotations. Moreover, you can share annotations with others
(e.g. ebooks could link to Wiki's where readers leave hints
for proofs, literature references, etc). Corrections can
be automagically "pushed" to your copy of the book. Texts
can be dynamically constructed based on your background and
goals (e.g. pure vs. applied math; examples can be tailored
to your intended applications; optimal paths chosen, etc).
I think many of the critics of ebooks don't realize the true
potential of the technology. Once one breaks away from the
static linear-structure of paper texts, the possibilities are
endless. The software technology for such has been around for
a long time. The impediment has been the cost of the hardware
(primarily the display). Sometime in the next few years I
suspect that one should be able to buy a good quality ebook
reader for under $100.
--Bill Dubuque
Bart Goddard
news:y8zk5cl...@nestle.csail.mit.edu:
> Of the above 13, that seems to be the only (semi)serious one.
> However, almost all modern ebook reader software supports
> annotations. Moreover, you can share annotations with others
> (e.g. ebooks could link to Wiki's where readers leave hints
> for proofs, literature references, etc). Corrections can
> be automagically "pushed" to your copy of the book. Texts
> can be dynamically constructed based on your background and
> goals (e.g. pure vs. applied math; examples can be tailored
> to your intended applications; optimal paths chosen, etc).
Ick. This is the sort of thing written by a guy who
wants to use the mountains in Switzerland to fill in
the valley, and thereby get rid of two nuicances at once.
"Just think how much fast you can drive from Berlin to
Rome!!"
B.(I just have an aversion to curling up with an electric
appliance.)
Bill Dubuque
>> However, almost all modern ebook reader software supports
>> annotations. Moreover, you can share annotations with others
>> (e.g. ebooks could link to Wiki's where readers leave hints
>> for proofs, literature references, etc). Corrections can
>> be automagically "pushed" to your copy of the book. Texts
>> can be dynamically constructed based on your background and
>> goals (e.g. pure vs. applied math; examples can be tailored
>
> Ick. This is the sort of thing written by a guy who
> wants to use the mountains in Switzerland to fill in
> the valley, and thereby get rid of two nuicances at once.
> "Just think how much fast you can drive from Berlin to Rome!!"
> B.(I just have an aversion to curling up with an electric appliance.)
And, seemingly, an aversion to posting replies of substance.
> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Clearly. Did you type the above post on your Remington typewriter?
--Bill Dubuque
Bart Goddard
> And, seemingly, an aversion to posting replies of substance.
>
This has been the problem all along. You seem to unable to
apply any definition of "substance" but your own rather narrow
one. That someone else might have a notion of "substance"
that is not (scarily) utilitarian is unthinkable to you.
So as you rattle off all the nifty little _utilitarian_
advantages to e-books, the only counter-argument you would
accept is one of utility. Anything that argues for something
that is not on the subject of "utility" has no "substance".
Welcome to the Borg.
I could have bought a very fancy electric keyboard which:
1. Had action indistinguishable from a grand piano.
2. Had sound indistinguishable from a grand piano.
3. Cost 1/5 what my grand piano cost.
4. Also made other sounds, such as harpsichord, organ,
saxaphone, drums, guitar, etc.
5. Took up much less space.
6. Was WAAAAAYY easier to move.
7. Would play songs by itself.
8. Could upload my playing to my laptop and have it
typset.
9. Was immune to changes in humidity.
10. Didn't require semi-annual visits from a tuner/tech.
But, I spent 5 times the cash for a giant, unwieldy
chunk of metal and wood. The only advantage is that I can
make music when the power goes off. I know this is
unfathomable to you, but I know I made the right decision.
Why? Because my definition of "substance" includes arguments
that assume personal enjoyment is a worthwhile pursuit.
I like the look of the polished mahogany. I like the angle
the lid makes when it's propped up. I even like the fact
that I'm clever enough to move the thing with only the help
of my wife. I like chatting with my tuner guy twice a year.
None of this is "serious" to you, because personal enjoyment
can't be a factor in your utilitarian Borg-world. People
gave you several _real and serious_ reasons to prefer books.
They DO look nice lined up on a shelf. It IS satisfying
to be un-electronic for a bit. The smell IS part of the
experience.
But since you wouldn't count these things as valuable,
they must surely be specious? Some of us wouldn't agree
even in the realm of mathematical research. We went into
math because we _enjoy_ it. If your e-books make you more
efficient so that you produce 20 more papers in your
lifetime, so what? You spend your life researching and
then you die. What really counts in the end is whether
you enjoyed the life of research. On your death bed are
you going to say, "That was darned fun" or "Man, that was
efficient!"?
So I don't care how you live your life and I don't care
if you think paper books are archaic and a waste of time.
But it sure does miff me when you apply your scary
value system to my life and call it not "serious."
When I die, the kids are going to agonize over what to
do with my piano. Neither of them plays much and neither
will likely have room for it. Yet they won't want to just
sell it, because it's a beloved piece of furniture which
has been part of our lives for decades. Their heads are
full of memories of me annoying them with noise while
they were trying to watch American Idol. Of me insisting
they learn to play. Of me protecting the piano from
their roughhousing. I don't care what they do with it,
but I know it will be a problem.
If I'd have bought the keyboard, they would just toss it.
The same for my books. If I had a large collection on my
laptop, or in my account, they'd just hit delete (or more
likely, just pitch the laptop.) But the neat rows of
books on the shelf, is a way different story.
B.
--
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
Bill Dubuque <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>My experience is the opposite. As I mentioned here, some recently
>purchased Springer books fell apart quite quickly. Otoh, I've
>used electronic texts without problems over 3 decades.
3 decades is a few years short of 500 years.
>I've accumulated many thousands of electronic texts over 3 decades
>and I've never encountered any major problems. What format did you
>have problems with?
Some examples are given in http://www.ams.org/notices/200011/commentary.pdf
>Why would it be quicker and cheaper to reprint in paper vs. electronic?
I don't know the reasons but the reasons are irrelevant; all I care about as
a consumer is *which* is quicker and cheaper, and not why. I plan to buy
Welsh's matroid theory book from Dover as soon as it becomes available.
Get a fully legal electronic copy of this book into my hands more quickly
and cheaply, and I'll change my tune. Start now---the clock is already
ticking.
Tim Smith
tc...@lsa.umich.edu wrote:
> In article <y8zr66t...@nestle.csail.mit.edu>,
> Bill Dubuque <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> >I've accumulated many thousands of electronic texts over 3 decades
> >and I've never encountered any major problems. What format did you
> >have problems with?
>
> Some examples are given in http://www.ams.org/notices/200011/commentary.pdf
>
There are some pretty ridiculous statements in that document. For
example:
Some will say that I describe a problem that does not exist. One
just builds 5 percent into the budget to cover the cost of data
transfer: every time a new technology comes along, the data gets
moved to the new format or medium. What nonsense. Who knows how to
transfer an ASCII file from an eighteen-year-old Sinclair computer
to a Linux system?
Who goes directly from an 18 year old Sinclair to a Linux system? You'd
transfer the data from the 18 year old Sinclair, to the 16 year old
system that replaced it, to the 13 year old system that replaced that,
to the 10 year old system that replaced that, to the 8 year old system
that replaced that, and so on, finally to the Linux system.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
> But, I spent 5 times the cash for a giant, unwieldy
> chunk of metal and wood. The only advantage is that I can
> make music when the power goes off. I know this is
> unfathomable to you, but I know I made the right decision.
> Why? Because my definition of "substance" includes arguments
> that assume personal enjoyment is a worthwhile pursuit.
> I like the look of the polished mahogany. I like the angle
> the lid makes when it's propped up. I even like the fact
> that I'm clever enough to move the thing with only the help
> of my wife. I like chatting with my tuner guy twice a year.
I would have been impressed by two people moving a grand piano, until I
saw this:
<http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0>
:-)
--
--Tim Smith
Bill Dubuque
>
> [...] The same for my books. If I had a large collection on
> my laptop, or in my account, they'd just hit delete (or more
> likely, just pitch the laptop.) But the neat rows of books
> on the shelf, is a way different story.
I think most mathematicians are far more interested in
the beauty of mathematical objects than they are in the
beauty of the physical objects representing them (e.g.
the smell of the books, or how they line up on a shelf,
to mention two such physical attributes you've cited).
I confess I never imagined that someone might make such
an argument against electronic media. This is sci.math,
not sci.love.the.look.and.smell.of.decaying.math.books
Please don't share what you do to taste and feel math.
--Bill Dubuque
Bart Goddard
> I think most mathematicians are far more interested in
> the beauty of mathematical objects than they are in the
> beauty of the physical objects representing them
Which is why they're not in a mad rush to hunt down
every vague thread remotely related to whatever they're
working on. You can't enjoy the beauty of mathematics when
it's whizzing by at 90 megs/sec. The beauty is in the
enjoyment of learning and discovery. You're skipping
that part. Yes, you can get to the top of the mountain
and enjoy the view quickly and easily by gunning your
Harley up the trail. But the view at the top is only
a small part of the hike.
Bill Dubuque
>> the beauty of mathematical objects than they are in the
>> beauty of the physical objects representing them
>
> Which is why they're not in a mad rush to hunt down
> every vague thread remotely related to whatever they're
> working on. You can't enjoy the beauty of mathematics when
> it's whizzing by at 90 megs/sec. The beauty is in the
> enjoyment of learning and discovery. You're skipping
> that part. Yes, you can get to the top of the mountain
> and enjoy the view quickly and easily by gunning your
> Harley up the trail. But the view at the top is only
> a small part of the hike.
Why do you think that, and how is it related to this thread?
By the way, if you want a glimpse of some "sensual" mathematics,
I highly recommend John Conway's book: The Sensual (Quadratic) Form.
Below is an excerpt from Richard K. Guy's informative review [1].
I am proud that during my service on the Hedrick Lecturers Committee,
we secured the services, along with those of Sir Michael Atiyah and Ron
Graham, of John Horton Conway. The lectures had to be heard, seen, felt,
smelled and tasted in order to appreciate them fully, but now we have the
next best thing, a written (and thankfully expanded) record.
If you know nothing about quadratic forms, or if you are an expert, you
should read this book. There is no shortage of books on quadratic forms
[1,2,3,5,6,7,9,10,12], so something unusual is needed to excuse another.
As we have come to expect, Conway provides us with the unusual. He gives
us new insights, insounds, inscents; he puts us in touch while writing
tastefully. To do justice to it, we would need to copy out the whole book.
I content myself with describing one item, Conway's river, and leave you to
read about conorms and vonorms, Farey fractions and PSL2(Z), isospectral
lattices (why you cannot hear their shape), gluing, the little Methuselah
form, the fifteen theorem, the quadratic form as a bouquet of flowers
- each flower from a finite field, and much more, in this remarkably
informative yet concise little book. [...]
--Bill Dubuque
Gerry Myerson
> When I die, the kids are going to agonize over what to
> do with my piano.
Is that a good thing?
Earlier this year, I had to go through all my Dad's stuff when he died.
All these photographs from the 1930s and 1940s, mostly of people
I never met and know nothing about. Why should I keep them? But
how can I throw them out?
It will be worse for my daughter. She's likely to inherit a 50 year run
of the American Mathematical Monthly. What in the name of Gauss
is she going to do with it?
I think if you're lucky enough to see the end coming,
you ought to get your stuff in order,
throw out or sell off everything you know your kids
will have no use for,
and put clear labels on the rest.
By the way, I'm sure my daughter will be happy to take
that piano off your hands. Maybe we can get the Stonehenge guy
to move it to Australia for us.
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>There are some pretty ridiculous statements in that document. For
>example:
>
> Some will say that I describe a problem that does not exist. One
> just builds 5 percent into the budget to cover the cost of data
> transfer: every time a new technology comes along, the data gets
> moved to the new format or medium. What nonsense. Who knows how to
> transfer an ASCII file from an eighteen-year-old Sinclair computer
> to a Linux system?
>
>Who goes directly from an 18 year old Sinclair to a Linux system?
Yes, the way he stated it is ridiculous. However, the problem is real,
because sometimes for budgetary or other reasons, people will fail to
upgrade at every step. Then later, when they find the time and money
to upgrade, they find themselves having to do an "impossible" upgrade.
On a small scale, I have some 5.25" disks with some recreational programs
that I wrote on an Apple ][+ many years ago. If I had been on the ball,
I could have transferred them to 3.5" disks back when it was common to
have both kinds of drives on the same machine, and kept up with further
conversions from that point on, but I didn't. Now it is no longer easy
for me to retrieve that information. The same kind of problem plagues
libraries. For a long period of time nobody cares enough to keep upgrading
everything, and then suddenly someone cares and it's a pain in the neck
to make up for all those years of delinquency.
Jack Campin - bogus address
> > >and I've never encountered any major problems. What format did you
> > >have problems with?
> > Some examples are given in http://www.ams.org/notices/200011/commentary.pdf
> There are some pretty ridiculous statements in that document. For
> example:
> Some will say that I describe a problem that does not exist. One
> just builds 5 percent into the budget to cover the cost of data
> transfer: every time a new technology comes along, the data gets
> moved to the new format or medium. What nonsense. Who knows how to
> transfer an ASCII file from an eighteen-year-old Sinclair computer
> to a Linux system?
> Who goes directly from an 18 year old Sinclair to a Linux system? You'd
> transfer the data from the 18 year old Sinclair, to the 16 year old
> system that replaced it, to the 13 year old system that replaced that,
> to the 10 year old system that replaced that, to the 8 year old system
> that replaced that, and so on, finally to the Linux system.
In some situations you have far fewer options. With airframe design
data, for forensic reasons you are not permitted to monkey about with
the data format at all. The original media must be preserved in a
readable state - which means curating magnetic tapes from as far back
as the 1960s.
I'm not sure there ever was a direct replacement for the Sinclair that
could read its media, or (rather more significantly) the early Amstrad
with its non-standard floppy disk drive. I know one prominent novelist
who worked exclusively on that. I had one of his files converted for
him - that took a specialist service most of the public didn't know
about and I'm not sure if it still operates, so most of his early work
is probably beyond recovery by now in its original form.
==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === <http://www.campin.me.uk> ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
Angus Rodgers
<ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai.i2u4email> wrote:
>In article <Xns9B304E853E25Fgo...@74.209.136.93>,
> Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> When I die, the kids are going to agonize over what to
>> do with my piano.
>
>Is that a good thing?
>
>[...]
>
>By the way, I'm sure my daughter will be happy to take
>that piano off your hands. Maybe we can get the Stonehenge guy
>to move it to Australia for us.
MATH PROFESSOR DIES IN FREAK PIANO ACCIDENT
Bart Goddard
52F5F9.093...@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au:
> In article <Xns9B304E853E25Fgo...@74.209.136.93>,
> Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> When I die, the kids are going to agonize over what to
>> do with my piano.
>
> Is that a good thing?
Not in itself, but the point was that the piano has
much broader and deeper value than the keyboard with
all of its technical whiz bang. The "good" part
_causes_ the later agony. A keyboard would have no
such power.
Bart Goddard
>>> I think most mathematicians are far more interested in
>>> the beauty of mathematical objects than they are in the
>>> beauty of the physical objects representing them
>>
>> Which is why they're not in a mad rush to hunt down
>> every vague thread remotely related to whatever they're
>> working on.
> Why do you think that, and how is it related to this thread?
Yes, I know you don't get it. The Borg thinks everything
is irrelevent except utility. I can say the same thing only
so many times before I get bored. I'm essentially there.
But I did find it ironic that the guy touting utility
falls back on the "beauty of mathematics" for one of
his arguments.
Bill Dubuque
>Bill Dubuque <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>>Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>>Bill Dubuque <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> the beauty of mathematical objects than they are in the
>>>> beauty of the physical objects representing them
>>>
>>> Which is why they're not in a mad rush to hunt down
>>> every vague thread remotely related to whatever they're
>>> it's whizzing by at 90 megs/sec. The beauty is in the
>>> enjoyment of learning and discovery. You're skipping
>>> that part. Yes, you can get to the top of the mountain
>>> and enjoy the view quickly and easily by gunning your
>>> Harley up the trail. But the view at the top is only
>>> a small part of the hike.
>>
>
> Yes, I know you don't get it. The Borg thinks everything
> is irrelevent except utility. I can say the same thing only
> so many times before I get bored. I'm essentially there.
Nowhere did I say anything like "everything is irrelevant
except utility". Why don't you answer my question and
clarify what you wrote above, instead of trying to put
words in my mouth.
> But I did find it ironic that the guy touting utility
> falls back on the "beauty of mathematics" for one of
> his arguments.
There's nothing at all ironic about valuing the beauty
of abstract mathematical objects more highly than that
of their concrete physical representations. If you read
sci.math more frequently you would know that - perhaps
more than anyone here - I am a champion of mathematical
beauty (esp. essence and simplicity). I have no qualms
at all about sacrificing the physical beauty of books
if that yields an enormous gain in the mathematical
beauty that I can access and share. That this is possible
should be evident from that advantages I listed earlier.
Eliminating the static linear centralized straitjacket
of physical books opens up endless possibilities that
will lead to revolutionary changes in education and
the rapidity of knowledge dissemination.
> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
While you're cheerfully admiring the "beauty" of your
"neat rows of books on the shelf", the rest of us will
forge ahead and gladly exploit the many advantages
of ebooks. While you're admiring the patterns on
your bookshelf, we'll be admiring the patterns in
highly complex mathematical objects that we couldn't
dream of comprehending in a lifetime constrained
by the inefficiencies and limitations of paper books.
--Bill Dubuque
Bart Goddard
> Nowhere did I say anything like "everything is irrelevant
> except utility".
When you called everyone's legitimate arguments not
"serious." You asked why one would prefer paper media.
Several people gave you real answers. You pooh-pooh them,
judging them by your (scary) standards instead of
considering them with a sensibly opened mind. You have
an "external" philosophy and can't imagine someone doing
something for an "internal" purpose. Therefore, anything
that argues an "internal" advantage is automatically
not serious.
>> But I did find it ironic that the guy touting utility
>> falls back on the "beauty of mathematics" for one of
>> his arguments.
>
> There's nothing at all ironic about valuing the beauty
> of abstract mathematical objects more highly than that
> of their concrete physical representations.
Since you studiously try not to get the point, I don't
know why I'd bother, but: It's not the concrete physical
representations that "beautiful", but rather the path
which they force you on. I would have thought the hiking
analogy made this clear. So we have: 1. The guy who
accused me of putting words in his mouth when I didn't
is putting words in my mouth. 2. The guy who said
"serious" several times is the one who won't take anything
seriously. 3. The guy who touts the beauty of math
does all he can to get a machine to do the math for him.
Go figure.
B.
--
Bill Dubuque
>> except utility".
>
> When you called everyone's legitimate arguments not
> "serious." You asked why one would prefer paper media.
> Several people gave you real answers. You pooh-pooh them,
> judging them by your (scary) standards instead of
> considering them with a sensibly opened mind. You have
> an "external" philosophy and can't imagine someone doing
> something for an "internal" purpose. Therefore, anything
> that argues an "internal" advantage is automatically
> not serious.
Certainly it is your prerogative to prefer books over ebooks
because you like their smell or the way they look on your
bookshelf or, for the other reasons you state, namely
> 7) Can snap shut with satisfying "whump" when idiot
> won't quit interrupting you while you're trying to read.
>
> 8) Can "whump" idiot's head solidly when he doesn't get
> the hint above.
>
> 9) Can read on airplane during take-off and landing
> (unless idiot insists on talking to you.)
>
> 10) Often the mere sight of a book will drive idiots off.
> (It messes with their Ipods or something.)
>
> 11) Devoid of "OMG" and "UR" and other such idiot-speak.
>
> 12) I like leather.
I find such objections to be extremely frivolous in a forum
devoted to mathematics.
>>> But I did find it ironic that the guy touting utility
>>> falls back on the "beauty of mathematics" for one of
>>> his arguments.
>>
>> There's nothing at all ironic about valuing the beauty
>> of abstract mathematical objects more highly than that
>> of their concrete physical representations.
>
> Since you studiously try not to get the point, I don't
> know why I'd bother, but: It's not the concrete physical
> representations that "beautiful", but rather the path
> which they force you on. [...]
So, what _mathematical_ "path" can you take with paper books
that you can't also take with ebooks? In fact the reverse
is true. Many more paths can be explored much more efficiently
with ebooks because they can be annotated with web links
to wiki's, online courses, errata, etc. The static linear
nature of paper books _greatly_ restricts the paths one
can pursue. If instead you're arguing that the look and
smell of the books is an essential component of the "path"
followed when learning math, then stop the discussion here
- we obviously have strongly incompatible views of what
is important in mathematics.
If you've been "cheerfully resisting change since 1959"
then why are you using a computer to post this message?
Don't you miss the smell of your Remington typewriter ink,
and the clacking of the keys, and the "whump" of smacking
the carriage return? Eventually you'll accept the ebook
just like you did the computer. But obviously not without
a tremendous amount of bitching and "whumping" during the
process. Such are the woes of the technophobic during
technologic revolutions.
Bart Goddard
> I find such objections to be extremely frivolous in a forum
> devoted to mathematics.
You're not listening. You just talk. Of COURSE you find
them frivolous. Your standard of what gives something
value is this scary, utilitarian thing. Of COURSE if
you judge everything by that twisted standard, it comes
out "frivolous." But it also seem frivolous to you because
you gave them no thought. Your type only wants the job
done, you don't really enjoy the doing of the job. Sucks
to be you. So you can't comprehend that taking a more
leisurely, introspective path to mathematical beauty would
be desirable, and so anyone who says so is being "frivolous."
> So, what _mathematical_ "path" can you take with paper books
> that you can't also take with ebooks?
Seriously, you've never gone hiking? That whole
analogy was entirely lost on you? "What path can you
hike down that you can't race your Harley down?"
And:
> In fact the reverse
> is true. Many more paths can be explored much more efficiently
> with ebooks
"Why don't you always use a motorcycle? You can explore
more paths more efficiently that way." Answer: Because
then it wouldn't be _hiking_. You're asserting
that I'll actually see "more" beauty by whizzing by on
a Harley than I would stomping through the forest on foot.
> If you've been "cheerfully resisting change since 1959"
> then why are you using a computer to post this message?
> Don't you miss the smell of your Remington typewriter ink,
> and the clacking of the keys, and the "whump" of smacking
> the carriage return? Eventually you'll accept the ebook
> just like you did the computer. But obviously not without
> a tremendous amount of bitching and "whumping" during the
> process. Such are the woes of the technophobic during
> technologic revolutions.
I'm not "technophobic", but your a chronological snob.
Bill Dubuque
>> that you can't also take with ebooks?
> So you can't comprehend that taking a more leisurely,
> introspective path to mathematical beauty would be desirable,
> and so anyone who says so is being "frivolous."
>
> Seriously, you've never gone hiking? That whole
> analogy was entirely lost on you? "What path can you
> hike down that you can't race your Harley down?"
That's a poor analogy. Ebooks have all the capabilities
of paper books and then some. If you want to ignore the
extended capabilities and read them the same way you do
paper books then you can. Nothing is lost in the process.
> And:
>
>> In fact the reverse is true. Many more paths can be explored
>> much more efficiently with ebooks
>
> "Why don't you always use a motorcycle? You can explore
> more paths more efficiently that way." Answer: Because
> then it wouldn't be _hiking_. You're asserting
> that I'll actually see "more" beauty by whizzing by on
> a Harley than I would stomping through the forest on foot.
No, see above.
Tim Smith
Bill Dubuque <w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> That's a poor analogy. Ebooks have all the capabilities
> of paper books and then some. If you want to ignore the
> extended capabilities and read them the same way you do
> paper books then you can. Nothing is lost in the process.
What do you use to read e-books?
For reading novels, or works of non-fiction that are mostly plain text,
I find that reading them on my Kindle fits your above description (and I
will generally take the Kindle edition over any other edition), but the
selection of math books available for Kindle and that have been
converted sufficiently faithfully to an e-book seems very low, in my
experience.
For material that I am going to have a hard time with, or that I'm going
to spend more than a few minutes reading, I find it is much more
effective (and much more enjoyable) if I can read in my comfy chair, or
on my comfy couch, or in my comfy bed. I've not found a computer or
laptop that can be integrated into the comfy {chair, couch, bed}
environment without severely reducing the comfiness below the minimum
acceptable level.
--
--Tim Smith
outofprintmath
> <outofprintm...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >I am aware that the current voting list is kludge and the loading
> >behaviour, depending on your environment, could be better. Using
> >Firefox it is still acceptable for me
On Oct 6, 1:30 pm, Angus Rodgers <twir...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Using Firefox (2.0.0.17), it crashes my poor old Win98SE system.
> Poor and old it may be, but that system is pretty stable in most
> respects. Loading this page, it runs completely out of system
> resources, bad things happen, and I have to reboot. Not always,
> but usually.
You challenged me to find out a better solution and I think the new
version is remarkably faster and requires much less resources.
http://outofprintmath.blogspot.com/
Does it work for you?
-- Klaus Schmid
Bart Goddard
>> Seriously, you've never gone hiking? That whole
>> analogy was entirely lost on you? "What path can you
>> hike down that you can't race your Harley down?"
>
> That's a poor analogy. Ebooks have all the capabilities
> of paper books and then some.
One last time: By "all" you mean only _your_ checklist of
worthwhile capabilities. My analogy is great, because
Harley rider says the exact same thing about his bike.
"It has all the capabilities of walking, plus some."
If you say "You're missing the detail of the flora
and fauna, you're missing the aromas of the trees,
your missing the enjoyment of mild exercise" he just
responds "those aren't serious objections, the only thing
that counts is getting to top, and I do it faster. And
I don't care that my obnoxious bike ruins the hike for
everyone else."
Go play with JHS in my boob bin now.
Angus Rodgers
Much better, thanks! I can now keep the page open in my browser
without any ill effects.
I notice that when I click on "Show results", no matter what the book,
the text "posted by Tim Chow 7/01/2008 06:58:00 PM" invariably appears
(along with the results, of course!): is this a bug?
Bill Dubuque
>>>
>>> Seriously, you've never gone hiking? That whole
>>> analogy was entirely lost on you? "What path can you
>>> hike down that you can't race your Harley down?"
>>
>> That's a poor analogy. Ebooks have all the capabilities
>> of paper books and then some.
>
> One last time: By "all" you mean only _your_ checklist of
> worthwhile capabilities. My analogy is great, because
> Harley rider says the exact same thing about his bike.
> "It has all the capabilities of walking, plus some."
> If you say "You're missing the detail of the flora
> and fauna, you're missing the aromas of the trees,
> your missing the enjoyment of mild exercise" he just
> responds "those aren't serious objections, the only thing
> that counts is getting to top, and I do it faster. And
> I don't care that my obnoxious bike ruins the hike for
> everyone else."
> Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
If you indeed insist that that your math books must be
objects that are some sort of swiss army knife, i.e. that
math books have physical properties such as: smell of leather,
durable enough to use as a weapon, look nice arranged on shelves,
etc, then that is certainly your prerogative. But I think you're
simply trolling, and that you will eventually accept ebooks -
just as you've accepted the computer that you now post from.
You're really nor "resisting change since 1959" - you just like
to whine about the painful process of changing when it's forced
upon you. Technophobia at its best. Browsing your google posting
profile I see you post 10 times more about religion and cigars
than you do about math, so it's clear what your priorities are.
I have no desire to engage in religious arguments in sci.math.
Let's simply agree to disagree. Enjoy the smell of your bibles
while you light up a cigar and contemplate the "beauty" of your
math books lined up on some shelf.
Bart Goddard
> If you indeed insist that that your math books must be
> objects that are some sort of swiss army knife,
More of your silly illogic. You're the one wanting a book
with more "capabilities."
> You're really nor "resisting change since 1959" - you just like
> to whine about the painful process of changing when it's forced
> upon you.
At no point in this inane discussion did I decry technology or
change. Again, it was you who made the disparaging comments
against that which was not the latest silly fad. I only
defended ordinary books. I'd bet I was writing code (in
assembly) while you were still discovering orafices. Heck,
I was the first guy in my county (and probably in all surrounding
counties) to own my own computer. But at no point did I tell
everyone around me to burn all their old toys because this
one was better.
B.
--
Bill Dubuque
>> be objects that are some sort of swiss army knife,
>
> More of your silly illogic. You're the one wanting a book
> with more "capabilities."
The only thing that's "silly" here is your rejection of math
ebooks for the reasons that they do not smell as nice as
leather-bound books, or they don't look as nice on a shelf,
or that you can't use them to "whump" someone over the head.
Those rank high among some of the most ludicrous arguments
I've encountered in almost 3 decades of online discussion.
>> You're really nor "resisting change since 1959" - you just like
>> to whine about the painful process of changing when it's forced
>> upon you.
>
> At no point in this inane discussion did I decry technology or
> change.
Your signature says "Cheerfully resisting change since 1959".
Based on your remarks here, you should word that more strongly.
> I'd bet I was writing code (in assembly) while you were still
> discovering orafices. Heck, I was the first guy in my county
> (and probably in all surrounding counties) to own my own computer.
I've been programming serious mathematics since the late 70's,
when I was a teenage MIT undergrad member of the Macsyma group.
At that time Macsyma was the most sophisticated symbolic math
system in existence. I doubt you did similar around that time.
Around the same time I discovered the first known algorithms
for computing limits and asymptotic analysis, did the first
implementation of the APR primality test (which was more complex
in its pre-Cohen-Lenstra formulation), etc, etc. What did you do
on your toy computer in assembler? The only "orafices" (sic)
evident are the large number of gaping holes in your arguments.
> But at no point did I tell everyone around me to burn
> all their old toys because this one was better.
Nor did I. It's obvious you're a troll, and not even a very good
one at that. So I won't be replying any further unless you have
something of _mathematical_ substance to say. Almost all of your
sci.math posts seem to be completely devoid of mathematical
content. Have you ever really experienced the beauty of math?
The small percentage of your sci.math posts that have some
math content seem to betray an interest in elementary number
theory. I suggest you study further and learn something about
the beauty of number theory, such as higher reciprocity laws
and class field theory, e.g. David Cox: Primes of the form
x^2 + n y^2. I guarantee you'll find that much more beautiful
than simply staring at your math books lined up on a shelf.
Bart Goddard
> The only thing that's "silly" here is your rejection of math
> ebooks
But I never rejected them. That's just your silly fantasy.
A real mathematician can read with precision. How is it
you can tout the "beauty of mathematics" when you can't
read simple definitions and apply them to proofs?
Angus Rodgers
<w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>I suggest you study further and learn something about
>the beauty of number theory, such as higher reciprocity laws
>and class field theory, e.g. David Cox: Primes of the form
>x^2 + n y^2.
Alas, a rather expensive paper book. :-)
Angus Rodgers
<w...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
>While you're cheerfully admiring the "beauty" of your
>"neat rows of books on the shelf", the rest of us will
>forge ahead and gladly exploit the many advantages
>of ebooks. While you're admiring the patterns on
>your bookshelf, we'll be admiring the patterns in
>highly complex mathematical objects that we couldn't
>dream of comprehending in a lifetime constrained
>by the inefficiencies and limitations of paper books.
That's a strong claim. Can you support it with an example?
(Just an outline would be fine - I'd be unlikely to understand
a detailed account)
outofprintmath
> Much better, thanks! I can now keep the page open in my browser
> without any ill effects.
Glad to know and thank you for your feedback.
>
> I notice that when I click on "Show results", no matter what the book,
> the text "posted by Tim Chow 7/01/2008 06:58:00 PM" invariably appears
> (along with the results, of course!): is this a bug?
Yes it was. In the meantime I reworked the site:
http://outofprintmath.blogspot.com/
If you find out any other glitches, please let me know.
-- Klaus Schmid
gerald...@gmail.com
in re-issuing out-of-print books...
Anyway, here it is: http://www.coursepackets.net/OutOfPrint.html
tc...@lsa.umich.edu
Thanks for the tip...I'll try contacting them.