Editing Euler's Gem
Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
Although reviewer Jeremy L. Martin complains that "the book's generalizations about mathematical history and aesthetics are a bit simplistic or even one-sided", points out a significant mathematical error in the book's conflation of [[Dual polyhedron|polar duality]] with [[Poincaré duality]], and views the book's attitude towards [[computer-assisted proof]] as "unnecessarily dismissive", he nevertheless concludes that the book's mathematical content "outweighs these occasional flaws".{{r|martin}} Dustin Jones evaluates the book as "a unique blend of history and mathematics ... engaging and enjoyable",{{r|jones}} and reviewer Bruce Roth calls it "well written and full of interesting ideas".{{r|roth}} Reviewer Janine Daems writes, "It was a pleasure reading this book, and I recommend it to everyone who is not afraid of mathematical arguments".{{r|daems}} |
Although reviewer Jeremy L. Martin complains that "the book's generalizations about mathematical history and aesthetics are a bit simplistic or even one-sided", points out a significant mathematical error in the book's conflation of [[Dual polyhedron|polar duality]] with [[Poincaré duality]], and views the book's attitude towards [[computer-assisted proof]] as "unnecessarily dismissive", he nevertheless concludes that the book's mathematical content "outweighs these occasional flaws".{{r|martin}} Dustin Jones evaluates the book as "a unique blend of history and mathematics ... engaging and enjoyable",{{r|jones}} and reviewer Bruce Roth calls it "well written and full of interesting ideas".{{r|roth}} Reviewer Janine Daems writes, "It was a pleasure reading this book, and I recommend it to everyone who is not afraid of mathematical arguments".{{r|daems}} |
||
==See also== |
|||
*[[List of books about polyhedra]] |
|||
==References== |
==References== |