My review of Janna Levin's A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines and David Leavitt's The Man Who Knew Too Much: Alan Turing and the Invention of the Computer appears in today's Philadelphia Inquirer. It begins thus:
We are, it appears, suckers for a good paradox. Who hasn't at least once puzzled over the Liar's Paradox? ("Everything I say is a lie. I am lying to you.") How better to account for the durable appeal of a sub-genre that might be christened "Math-lit"? From novels (Apostolos Doxiadis' Uncle Petros and Goldbach's Conjecture) to biographies (Sylvia Nasar's A Beautiful Mind) to theater (David Auburn's Proof), the figure of the eccentric mathematician exerts a powerful hold on our imaginations. Perhaps it's our own paradox, a reflection of our unease at owing so much to those so odd.
For sheer eccentricity, it's hard to match Alan Turing and Kurt Gödel. Gödel, who redrew the mathematical landscape with his incompleteness theorem (which, grossly oversimplified, states that not all truths are provably true), starved himself to death in a paranoiac haze, convinced his food was poisoned. Turing, best known for cracking the German Enigma code, was given to riding his bicycle in a gas mask and wearing his pants held up with string.
You can read the rest here.
Chemical castration? Ow.
Posted by: Jim Ruland | October 03, 2006 at 12:14 PM
You use the royal we in your book reviews too?
Posted by: May Barber | October 03, 2006 at 05:48 PM
That one was a literal we, not the royal variety.
Posted by: TEV | October 03, 2006 at 05:55 PM
I would add "Incompleteness", by Rebecca Goldstein which, beside Goedel, includes Wittgenstein.
Posted by: May | October 04, 2006 at 10:19 AM