FOM: naive or brainwashed?
rhersh at math.unm.edu
Fri Mar 13 22:17:43 EST 1998
I find your statement that according to me it is not necessary to
read a book in order to know its contents absurd, grotesque, and
However, I appreciate your latest message denying any intention to
You could correctly define my book by title, author & publisher.
This would single it out from all other books, and make it
possible for anyone to know if they had that book or some other book.
To explain the book, to review it, to summarize it, or to refute it
would of course be much more than defining it. To do those things
it would be good to read the book, or at least skim it, glance at the
table of contents and the bibliography, enough to fake it (referring
not to you but to Martin Gardner and Edward Rothstein.)
As I understand defining, it's like in a dictionary, which you know
of course is full of definitions. The definition of "broom" is meant
to enable you to tell a broom from a basketball, not to give the
whole theory and practise of sweeping.
Read the book or not, whatever you want. Possibly if you do
read it we could have a more profitable discussion.
More information about the FOM