Learning List and Proof by seduction

Is it me or is MIT Press really awesome? I can't believe how many amazing books come out from MIT press. A lot of the more serious books in my book list are from MIT Press.

I can't say anymore about those book anymore than why I want to read them.
Learning list for this Winter and Spring 2010. I will keep this page updated so I know how far I am from all my goals(apart from long term goals of finish SICP/
CLRS
/TAoCP/CM before college ends,(TAoCP before college ends? not likely...))

A few more to squeeze in if I have time or the mood: Hacker's Delight, The Princeton Companion to Mathematics, What Is Mathematics? An Elementary Approach to Ideas and Methods, Conceptual foundations of international politics, Evolution, ecology and behavior, Literary Theory, The Future of Human Health,Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time,Riot at the Calc Exam and Other Mathematically Bent Stories.

Now to my 2nd topic.
While I was trying to search for "Proof and Other Dilemmas" on the local library, I stumbled upon this epic work.
Proof by Seduction(Historical romance novel). OMG did someone take the joke by Brown Sharpie to a whole new level?[Link to the proof by seduction comic].
There is no way this is a coincidence. The pun was totally intended.
Yes, I was right, here is a passage from the author's website where she explains about the title.

There”s a method of mathematical proof called a “Proof by Induction.” Induction is a method of logical thinking, and it’s closely related to another kind of logical thinking (deduction).

Ahh, I knew!
Oh wait, what does she mean by induction is related to deduction? Wasn't she just talking about mathematical induction a sentence before? Did she get induction and mathematical induction mixed up? Did she forget to create a new paragraph to eliminate the confusing?
She later states

The nitpicky amongst you will note that Gareth, as a scientist, really only employs the method of inductive reasoning, not ever a proof by induction. This bothered me to no small extent, but ultimately “Proof by Seduction” is a much, much better title than “Proof by Seductive Reasoning” and elegance won out over the desire to have an arcane pun that was both arcane and nitpicky.

Oh, I see.
Really? Calling the book proof by seduction and not letting the main character do at least one proof by induction? That's just outrageous. I'm sure anyone can squeeze a proof of rational number can be written as a product of factorials and it's reciprocals in their novel.
Still, it's awesome to see a epic pun become a title of a book.


Comments

Post new comment

  • Allowed HTML tags: <img> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <span> <fn>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Use [fn]...[/fn] (or <fn>...</fn>) to insert automatically numbered footnotes.
  • You can enable syntax highlighting of source code with the following tags: <code>, <blockcode>. The supported tag styles are: <foo>, [foo].
  • Mathematical equations and graphs can be added between [tex] and [/tex], [graph] and [/graph] tags.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
* (-17) = -306
Solve this math question and enter the solution with digits. E.g. for "two plus four = ?" enter "6".
Honey Pot that kill bots