Your Garage Editors' Picks Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Snacks Totes Amazon Cash Back Offer PilotWave7B PilotWave7B PilotWave7B  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis DollyParton Shop Now
Customer Review

32 of 35 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Journalistic hypes and some patently false claims, August 3, 2007
This review is from: A Beautiful Math: John Nash, Game Theory, and the Modern Quest for a Code of Nature (Hardcover)
I am an academic economist who knows something about game theory, so when I bought this book I did not hope to learn anything new but just to be entertained by an "illuminating" author during my leisure hours. I was disappointed to the point of anger.

This book is basically a journalist's report based on interviews with a few (probably half a dozen) individuals as the pages are filled with quotes from several academics in good standing. I think it would have been better to simply present many illuminating quotes from these individuals without inserting additional insights that the author gleaned from them, because many of the author's insertions were at best misleading and at worst patently false.

Just for an example, the author keeps insisting that payoff numbers in games are "money" as economists are interested in monetary matters. It might probably be true that von Neumann preferred interpreting payoffs of a game as money, but most practicing economists and game theorists certaintly do not do that.

An annoying repeated phrase is that "xxx told me (in an exclusive interview) that..." where xxx is one of the half dozen individuals mentioned above. Most of what xxx told the author must be correct, relevant and have some meaning but these are simply taken out of context by bits and spread throughout the text.

Also the basic hype about game theory's possibility to be a Theory of Everything seems to come out of (as the author admits) one person's recent writings at Bell Labs. The idea itself presented as such sounds simply outrageous (even to an academic economist like myself) but rather a surpring fact is that game theory's origins are in fact related to such an outrageous idea from physicists, mathematicians and "cyberneticians", one story of which is told in Mirowski, Machine Dreams. Mirowski's book has its own faults, and is a lot more heavy going (with some 500 + pages with small fonts and requiring a lot of knowledge), but at least it shows seriousness and a lot of research the author took to it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Track comments by e-mail

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 22, 2012 11:25:13 AM PST
i am a theoretical physicist who knows a great deal about statistical mechanics since it my research field and it obvious that the author knows nothing about the subject. his promotion of Wolpert's idea that a mathematical link between game theory and statistical mechanics is of any significance is utter nonsense. moreover, as a libertarian formally educated in the Austrian school of economics, it is obvious that the author knows very little about free market economics. the junk science spouted by the author should not have surprised me as it was apparent in his previous book "The Bit and the Pendulum". the author is one of the very worst science popularizers currently at work he apparently interviews a few people and then
either buys into their self-aggrandizing claims about the significance of their work or he does not understand what they are telling him and he concocts a mish mosh out of his misunderstanding and/or ignorance. if you want to understand anything about the scientific topics this author has written about, your best approach would be to avoid anything this author has written and instead look for other books written by far better professional science popularizers (there are a few of them). better still, read a popularization written by a practicing professional scientist - even if the writing is less transparent, what knowledge you do gain will be better than anything this author is likely to tell you. it is actually better to be ignorant then to be so utterly misinformed.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›