In addition to publishing a book-sized collection of failed angle trisections, Underwood Dudley is also the author of "Mathematical Cranks" (978-0883855072), which gives a broad and fascinating descriptions of all sorts of examples of the species. It remains one of my favorite books for the wide range of examples and a few insights into…
Underwood Dudley has written more comprehensive books about mathematical cranks (in general) and trisectors (in particular) which are a delight to read.
There’s a great book on Mathematical Cranks where one of the recurring themes is that the intuition must always be correct, and anything that seems counterintuitive is abhorrent and must be wrong.
…yes! And you can get into trouble trying to engage with logic, because that is not the name of the game. >I've been perversely interested in this Me too, and with other crankery. I recommend the book Mathematical Cranks for similar entertainment. https://books.google.com/books/about/Mathematical_Cranks.htm... Maybe I am interested in it because you begin to see small reflections of similar behavior everywhere once…
> 我上面链接的出处引用了 Underwood Dudley 的《Mathematical Cranks》，但我在书里没找到。我不知道为什么会有人用 AI 垃圾去伪造老派的数学民科言论，但我认为必须把这当成一种可能性。尤其是……
> The source I linked to above cites Mathematical Cranks by Underwood Dudley, but I couldn’t find it in the book. I don't know why someone would make an AI slop fake of old mathematical crankery, but I think that has to be considered as a possibility. Especially…
……以自然对数的底 e（欧拉常数）为底，理论上不是应该比三进制（base 3）更高效吗？但在试图验证这一点时，我发现了这么一段贴切的话：> Underwood Dudley 在《Mathematical Cranks》一书中讨论的其中一位怪人辩称 e 是最好的底数，其依据是对施泰纳微积分问题的一团浆糊式理解，并且极度夸大了数制基数选择的重要性。
…wouldn't base e, as in Euler's constant, theoretically be more efficient than ternary numbers (base 3). But in trying to confirm it, found this suitable quote: > One of the eccentrics discussed in the book, Mathematical Cranks by Underwood Dudley, argues that e is the best base, based on a muddled understanding of Steiner's calculus problem, and with a greatly exaggerated sense of how important the choice of radix is.
除了出版过一本厚如书卷的“三等分角失败合集”之外，Underwood Dudley 还是《Mathematical Cranks》（978-0883855072）的作者，书中对这类“民科”的各种奇葩案例进行了广泛且引人入胜的描述。它至今仍是我最喜欢的书之一，因为里面的案例太丰富了，而且对……有很独到的见解。
In addition to publishing a book-sized collection of failed angle trisections, Underwood Dudley is also the author of "Mathematical Cranks" (978-0883855072), which gives a broad and fascinating descriptions of all sorts of examples of the species. It remains one of my favorite books for the wide range of examples and a few insights into…
Underwood Dudley 写过好几本更全面的书，专门介绍数学民科（整体上）以及执迷于三等分角的人（具体案例），读起来非常有意思。
Underwood Dudley has written more comprehensive books about mathematical cranks (in general) and trisectors (in particular) which are a delight to read.
有一本关于数学民科（Mathematical Cranks）的绝妙好书，里面反复出现的一个主题就是：直觉必须永远是正确的，任何看似反直觉的东西都是不可理喻的，而且一定是错的。
There’s a great book on Mathematical Cranks where one of the recurring themes is that the intuition must always be correct, and anything that seems counterintuitive is abhorrent and must be wrong.
……没错！而且你想跟他们讲逻辑往往会惹得一身骚，因为人家根本就不按逻辑出牌。>我对这种东西有着一种病态的兴趣 我也是，对其他民科言论也是如此。推荐《Mathematical Cranks》这本书，能带来类似的乐子。https://books.google.com/books/about/Mathematical_Cranks.htm... 也许我之所以对它感兴趣，是因为一旦你看过，就会开始在各处看到类似行为的微小影子……
…yes! And you can get into trouble trying to engage with logic, because that is not the name of the game. >I've been perversely interested in this Me too, and with other crankery. I recommend the book Mathematical Cranks for similar entertainment. https://books.google.com/books/about/Mathematical_Cranks.htm... Maybe I am interested in it because you begin to see small reflections of similar behavior everywhere once…
> 我上面链接的出处引用了 Underwood Dudley 的《Mathematical Cranks》，但我在书里没找到。我不知道为什么会有人用 AI 垃圾去伪造老派的数学民科言论，但我认为必须把这当成一种可能性。尤其是……
> The source I linked to above cites Mathematical Cranks by Underwood Dudley, but I couldn’t find it in the book. I don't know why someone would make an AI slop fake of old mathematical crankery, but I think that has to be considered as a possibility. Especially…
……以自然对数的底 e（欧拉常数）为底，理论上不是应该比三进制（base 3）更高效吗？但在试图验证这一点时，我发现了这么一段贴切的话：> Underwood Dudley 在《Mathematical Cranks》一书中讨论的其中一位怪人辩称 e 是最好的底数，其依据是对施泰纳微积分问题的一团浆糊式理解，并且极度夸大了数制基数选择的重要性。
…wouldn't base e, as in Euler's constant, theoretically be more efficient than ternary numbers (base 3). But in trying to confirm it, found this suitable quote: > One of the eccentrics discussed in the book, Mathematical Cranks by Underwood Dudley, argues that e is the best base, based on a muddled understanding of Steiner's calculus problem, and with a greatly exaggerated sense of how important the choice of radix is.