Criminal offences in maths textbooks

  • Thread starter matt grime
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Textbooks
In summary, the conversation highlights several frustrations with math textbooks, including incorrect facts, misuse of symbols, and unclear explanations. The conversation also touches on the issue of providing answers for exercises, which can hinder the learning process for students. The speakers also express their frustration with authors and editors who fail to acknowledge or correct serious errors in their books. They emphasize the importance of understanding and checking one's own work, rather than relying on provided answers.
  • #36
matt grime said:
The Boubaki syndrome really means the writing of mathematics in its 'purest' form, i.e. statements with minimal hypotheses and a very dry style without motivation and in principle from the ground up. The lay reader at this point should not think that by motivation I mean solving a problem in the real world. I mean explaining the reasons why one might wish to prove such a theorem.

The style has its benefits, and its drawbacks, naturally. The reader can decide for themselves if they want articles with lots of statements like 'let M be a monoid, now...'

I did a google on "Boubaki syndrome", and it yielded one single hit - which was this very page. Though I think I'm pretty sure from the discussion provided here what is meant by the term, I'm curious as to whether it is the actual name of the phenomenon?

I do not doubt, though, that there are several authors to whom one could argue that the phenomenon was attributable to the extent that eponymocity is justified.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #37
It helps to spell Bourbaki right. :smile:
 
  • #38
Nesk said:
I did a google on "Boubaki syndrome", and it yielded one single hit


woo-hoo, we're a googlewhack. That means I've now been a googlewhackee twice.
 
  • #39
jhat21 said:
Criminal offenses in math textbooks:

#2 Useless diagrams.
Refer to fig 1.a on page#<somepagefaraway>,
fig 1.a (a right triangle with the right angle <ABC labeled 90 degrees)
what is the sin of angle <ABC?
Just say what is sin(90) !

When they make you do problems according to the diagram *they* assign, using the variables *they* pick, so you have to flip back and forth to their stupid pictures and premises. Just so you have to use *their* book! I know what sin90 is but what the hell is sin (<ABC) is unless I buy their textbook?!

I have something similar to this. My calculus booked had a theorem and stated (proof in section 14.3) We were in Chapter 7. I look ahead to find the proof and turned out...the proof wasn't there.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top