What am I in for, /sci/?

Did you read that book?

>>8461882
the best pop sci book ever written

>>8461888
not yet

>>8461882
A very casual explanation of set theory using made up words to try to make it more profound.

>>8461882

Didn't we just have this thread last week.

.. what am I doing with my life..

>>8461998
we have this thread every week.

>>8461882
highly recursive memes

pretty shitty and long-winded book by a guy who's somewhat socially awkward. type of dude who you'd meet at a conference, get a drink with after, and who'd keep you planted for like 3 hours while he says profound shit that he paradoxically makes seem really lame with his gay attempts at illustration

>My aunt xd

>>8462031

The same thing we do every night, pinky, shitpost in the same threads!

>>8462131
This is frighteningly accurate. The book is extremely overhyped

>>8462201
>frighteningly
fuck off back to rebbit

>>8461882
A ton of symbolism.

>>8462201
Fuck. Just started reading it.

>>8462833
Oh no, you might accidentally learn something interesting.

>>8462131

Actually had dinner with the guy, (I go to the uni he teaches at) After his wife died he was totally broken, now he is obsessed with salsa dancing.

a bunch of shit most people already know in 2016, explained in the most convoluted way possible

>>8462915
This is true but

>>8462833
Personally I found it quite fun to read regardless

>>8462898
Fuck... Im the guy you responded to.

You know, I commend the guy for writing possibly one the best pop sci books of all time (speaking objectively. I cant deny its influence, even if I disliked it), and I guess I didnt realize that someone like Hofstadster wrote the book in a way that captures a lot of the things that pass through his mind (which explains why his individual eccentricities seem so evident to me in reading it). I have to ammend my post by saying that, stylistically his book is interesting just because of how honestly he wrote it (even though it does seem like he is grasping for straws at times). My main issue with it is the fact that he presented the material according to his own individual tastes. Are there any books that cover the same topics but in a not such aspergerish way?

>>8462915
btw patently false. unless you think that every average joe -- or even STEM major -- understands Godels IC proof and its ramifications.

c o n t r a p u n c t u s

>>8461882
MIU MIIUU FUUUUUCK

>>8461882
A fantastic, unique, immensely worthwhile read that everyone here is shitting on to feel superior

>>8462898
>After his wife died he was totally broken,
typical beta

Read something like a hundred pages. Just boring obvious shit from a guy who is trying way too hard to sound deep. Maybe this was impressive 30 years ago.

I was hoping he would prove negative numbers don't exist.

>>8461955
kek

sage