![]() |
|
Rent Your Textbooks
Save up to 70% when you rent your textbooks on Amazon. Keep your textbook rentals for a semester and rental return shipping is free. |
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
If you deal at all with probability theory, statistics, data analysis, pattern recognition, automated diagnosis -- in short, any form of reasoning from inconclusive or uncertain information -- you need to read this book. It will give you new perspectives on these problems.
The downside to the book is that Jaynes died before he had a chance to finish it, and the editor, although capable and qualified to fill in the missing pieces, was understandably unwilling to inject himself into Jaynes's book. One result is that the quality of exposition suffers in some of the later chapters; furthermore, the author is not in a position to issue errata to correct various minor errors. Volunteer efforts are underway to remedy these problems -- those who buy the book may want to visit the "Unofficial Errata and Commentary" website for it, or check out the etjaynesstudy mailing list at Yahoo groups.
As others have already mentioned, Jaynes never finished this book. The editor decided to "fill in" the missing parts by putting excercises that, when finished by the reader, provide what (so the editor guesses) Jaynes left out. I find this solution a bit disappointing. The excercises don't take away the impression that holes are left in the text. It would have been better if the editor had written the missing parts and then printed those in different font so as to indicate that these parts were not written by Jaynes. Better still would have been if the editor had invited researchers that are intimately familiar with Jaynes' work and the topic of each of the missing pieces to submit text for the missing pieces. The editor could then have chosen from these to provide a "best guess" for what Jaynes might have written.
Finally, there is the issue of Jaynes' writing style. This is of course largely a matter of taste. I personally like his writing style very much because it is clear, and not as stifly formal as most science texts. However, some readers may find his style too belligerent and polemic.
|