Scan barcode
Reviews
The Advent of the Algorithm: The 300-Year Journey from an Idea to the Computer by David Berlinski
tophat8855's review against another edition
5.0
Hilarious. I love the way Berlinski writes- and I especially love his fictional stories that he places throughout the book. It makes me love algorithms all the more.
felixmpichardo's review against another edition
2.0
More about the history of mathematical logic than what most might expect based on the title. A lot is worth skipping. I also don't like his writing style... but like the topics he discusses. Not sure it's worth the read.
lpm100's review against another edition
2.0
2.0 out of 5 stars Overwritten
Reviewed in the United States on April 9, 2019
I think that this is going to be my final David Berlinski book. (I have one more of his that I have purchased, but that I have not yet read.)
For most books, the reader has an idea of exactly what they are within the first 5 or 10 pages.
This book went on for 333 pages, and it's only at around page 218 that I'm beginning to figure out what it is.
It seems to be a synopsis of mathematical developments that culminated in the algorithm and then the computer.
("Algorithm" is one of those words that one hears spoken in English,
to which one would like a more precise definition. In that respect, this book is like drinking water through a fire hose.)
Owing to the fact that mathematicians are on a different plane from the rest of us, this notion of an algorithm takes on overtones that the overwhelming majority of humanity cannot hear.
If the reader wants a better book on algorithms (in the practical sense of the word), I would recommend "The Checklist Manifesto" much in preference to this one.
A series of better books on biological complexity: "Signature in the Cell" and "Darwin's Doubt."
Berlinski is trying to strike the balance between: prose that a normal human being will sit down and read from start to finish versus a textbook-- which nobody would read at all. (That explains his insertion of narrative-creating-fictitious-vignettes, the exact point of any of which I have yet to discern.)
There is his usual assortment of $5 words.
Asseverations
Marmoreal
Transmogrification
Taponade
Greave
Monad
Irrefragable
Indubitable
Lepidopterist
Rubicund
Bezel
Abjured
Dialectician
Stroboscopic
Fiacre
Valetudinarian
Chillblains
Ashram
Arabesques
Empyrean
Ecumenical
Numinous
Apothegms
Desultory
Chiliastic
Escutcheon
Bezel
Irrefrangibly
The single best sentence of this book was probably on page 155: "Logic has always been a dangerous discipline, any number of logicians going mad after finding themselves hopelessly lost in the wilderness of their own thoughts."
The sentence is brilliant precisely because I understand *every* single word in it. And I *understand* every single word in it.
To wit: These people who created all of these wonderful things almost all died from unnatural causes or had serious mental issues. Godel starved himself to death. Turing died after cyanide poisoning. Etc.
Because Pure Mathematics is a discipline that resonates with so few people, this book is not quite the same thing as reading a book on the history of Physics or some history of Molecular Biology. Because Physics and Molecular Biology do correspond to things that we all see in the real world and in everyday life.
Everybody can imagine Newton being thumped on the head by an apple. Nobody can imagine an obscure debate between ways that somebody treats functions.
There are 15 chapters, and just about 21 pages per chapter. But none of the chapters are thematically arranged in such a way that a person can go back and re-read what he may not have understood.
And the scope of topics is vast.
Intro to predicate calculus
Set theory
Lambda conversion
Hilbert spaces
Godel's incompleteness
Approximate differential equations
Computer modeling of statistical mechanics
Shannon information
Turing machines
Complexity (with respect to biological systems)
There are a lot of things that an intelligent person will have heard of in a passing way. Godel incompleteness theorem. Hilbert spaces. But, you can't deduce such things by just reading a book. They take intense and focused practice (i.e., a college course).
And while that book could possibly have been written, this was not that book. Berlinski's prattling was of no use.
One other minor stylistic quibble: Which English is he using? On page 19, I find a word spelled the British way, and then another word spelled the American way just a paragraph later.
Berlinski's gift for writing shines through on every page. That fact notwithstanding: Beautifully dressing up a poorly structured book is the logical equivalent of a brand new Aston Martin with no engine.
Verdict: Not recommended.
Reviewed in the United States on April 9, 2019
I think that this is going to be my final David Berlinski book. (I have one more of his that I have purchased, but that I have not yet read.)
For most books, the reader has an idea of exactly what they are within the first 5 or 10 pages.
This book went on for 333 pages, and it's only at around page 218 that I'm beginning to figure out what it is.
It seems to be a synopsis of mathematical developments that culminated in the algorithm and then the computer.
("Algorithm" is one of those words that one hears spoken in English,
to which one would like a more precise definition. In that respect, this book is like drinking water through a fire hose.)
Owing to the fact that mathematicians are on a different plane from the rest of us, this notion of an algorithm takes on overtones that the overwhelming majority of humanity cannot hear.
If the reader wants a better book on algorithms (in the practical sense of the word), I would recommend "The Checklist Manifesto" much in preference to this one.
A series of better books on biological complexity: "Signature in the Cell" and "Darwin's Doubt."
Berlinski is trying to strike the balance between: prose that a normal human being will sit down and read from start to finish versus a textbook-- which nobody would read at all. (That explains his insertion of narrative-creating-fictitious-vignettes, the exact point of any of which I have yet to discern.)
There is his usual assortment of $5 words.
Asseverations
Marmoreal
Transmogrification
Taponade
Greave
Monad
Irrefragable
Indubitable
Lepidopterist
Rubicund
Bezel
Abjured
Dialectician
Stroboscopic
Fiacre
Valetudinarian
Chillblains
Ashram
Arabesques
Empyrean
Ecumenical
Numinous
Apothegms
Desultory
Chiliastic
Escutcheon
Bezel
Irrefrangibly
The single best sentence of this book was probably on page 155: "Logic has always been a dangerous discipline, any number of logicians going mad after finding themselves hopelessly lost in the wilderness of their own thoughts."
The sentence is brilliant precisely because I understand *every* single word in it. And I *understand* every single word in it.
To wit: These people who created all of these wonderful things almost all died from unnatural causes or had serious mental issues. Godel starved himself to death. Turing died after cyanide poisoning. Etc.
Because Pure Mathematics is a discipline that resonates with so few people, this book is not quite the same thing as reading a book on the history of Physics or some history of Molecular Biology. Because Physics and Molecular Biology do correspond to things that we all see in the real world and in everyday life.
Everybody can imagine Newton being thumped on the head by an apple. Nobody can imagine an obscure debate between ways that somebody treats functions.
There are 15 chapters, and just about 21 pages per chapter. But none of the chapters are thematically arranged in such a way that a person can go back and re-read what he may not have understood.
And the scope of topics is vast.
Intro to predicate calculus
Set theory
Lambda conversion
Hilbert spaces
Godel's incompleteness
Approximate differential equations
Computer modeling of statistical mechanics
Shannon information
Turing machines
Complexity (with respect to biological systems)
There are a lot of things that an intelligent person will have heard of in a passing way. Godel incompleteness theorem. Hilbert spaces. But, you can't deduce such things by just reading a book. They take intense and focused practice (i.e., a college course).
And while that book could possibly have been written, this was not that book. Berlinski's prattling was of no use.
One other minor stylistic quibble: Which English is he using? On page 19, I find a word spelled the British way, and then another word spelled the American way just a paragraph later.
Berlinski's gift for writing shines through on every page. That fact notwithstanding: Beautifully dressing up a poorly structured book is the logical equivalent of a brand new Aston Martin with no engine.
Verdict: Not recommended.
More...