Stephen Wolfram - A New Kind of Science

>>9052423
That book is what happens when you spend decades doing one thing and then you start glorifying that one thing, thinking it will be the next revolution.

I think we all do that. We all like to think that our field is the best field. I guess Wolfram was just rich enough to publish his drunken ramblings.

>>9052427
Wolfram Alpha and Mathematica are products that measure themselves with the top though, don't you think so?

Especially the Wolfram Language is something without comparison regarding its capabilities.

>>9052650
But his book is not about that. It is about how computer science is too cool for school and it is clear Wolfram only jerks CS that much because right now he is the top dog in that field right now.

File: this.gif (753KB, 379x192px) Image search: [Google]

753KB, 379x192px

>>9052655
he explains Cellular Automatons which are a fundamental part of Mathematicas and Wolfram Alphas functions...

Wouldn't a CS book from the "top dawg" be the recommended thing to read?

>>9052677
>Wouldn't a CS book from the "top dawg" be the recommended thing to read?

But it's not a technical book, he just talks about how cool his work is. He basically says:

>I researched thing
>I conjecture the entire universe is this thing
>Ergo, I know the entire universe and that makes me the coolest person around.

And remember it has been described as
>It is certainly the most arrogant piece of science writing I have ever read

I love Stephen Wolfram. His talks basically single handedly made me (basically autistically obsessed) with learning CS and math. He has very powerful stuff.
Not even joking.

File: the_belousov-zhabotinsky_reaction.gif (3MB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 300x300px

>>9052694
honestly I get the feeling that you either haven't read a single page or haven't understood a single page of the book.

>But it's not a technical book
there are a lot of proven statements about stochastic and statistic phenomenons in simple programs in there, also a new way of random number generation, etc. concrete and technical stuff.

>And remember it has been described as
why should that in any way influence my opinion on the book? There is no constructive critisism in this "review" only blatant insults.

>>9052701
agreed, I was fascinated by his work too.

>>9052694

>>It is certainly the most arrogant piece of science writing I have ever read

Undoubtedly. It's honestly hilarious, Wolframs delusions of grandeur shines through from page one of the preface. He compares himself to Newton and Einstein, and others.

It's a shame he's such a crank, because the book actually contains some interesting bits on CA, which are unfortunately overshadowed by his extreme narcissism.

If cellular automata are so great why hasn't a new one been discovered in the last 30 years?

>>9052715
>there are a lot of proven statements about stochastic and statistic phenomenons in simple programs in there, also a new way of random number generation, etc. concrete and technical stuff.
Have you ever read an actual mathematics textbook?

>>9052715
>there are a lot of proven statements about stochastic and statistic phenomenons in simple programs in there, also a new way of random number generation, etc. concrete and technical stuff.

Yeah but it is not like a technical book in the sense of a textbook. You don't read a textbook and see comments about how cool the author is. And by the way, when people critique Wolfram's book they never mean the rigorous results. What is proven is proven. What people critique and mock is the conclusion he draws from all of it. The guy believes he has the biggest cock in science.

File: 342345.jpg (19KB, 200x286px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 200x286px

He is the messiah, hear his words and you will be saved from this world full of brainlets.

>>9052423
I only read some of it. Seemed pretty okay, I suggest you read Scott Araanson's review.

>>9052785
>he fails to grasp that inasmuch as science is observational or perceptual in nature, the goal of providing a scientific model and mechanism for the evolution of complex systems ultimately requires a supporting theory of reality of which perception itself is the model (or theory-to-universe mapping). Where information is the abstract currency of perception, such a theory must incorporate the theory of information while extending the information concept to incorporate reflexive self-processing in order to achieve an intrinsic (self-contained) description of reality. This extension is associated with a limiting formulation of model theory identifying mental and physical reality, resulting in a reflexively self-generating, self-modeling theory of reality identical to its universe on the syntactic level. By the nature of its derivation, this theory, the Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe or CTMU, can be regarded as a supertautological reality-theoretic extension of logic.
>he has yet to grasp that by uniting the theory of reality with an advanced form of computational language theory, the CTMU describes reality as a Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL, a reflexive intrinsic language characterized not only by self-reference and recursive self-definition, but full self-configuration and selfexecution (reflexive read-write functionality). SCSPL reality embodies a dual-aspect monism consisting of infocognition, self-transducing information residing in self-recognizing SCSPL elements called syntactic operators. The CTMU identifies itself with the structure of these operators and thus with the distributive syntax of its self-modeling SCSPL universe, including the reflexive grammar by which the universe refines itself from unbound telesis or UBT, a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint.

http://www.megafoundation.org/CTMU/Articles/Langan_CTMU_092902.pdf

>>9052791
This guy honestly makes my blood boil. He's creating almost a separate vocabulary (much like cult leaders), the only thing he references are his other irrelevant work that nobody will ever read because we're all convinced he's a fraud.

Let's be honest, we all knew he was a con man from the salesman body language and that promotional "documentary" made about him.

>>9052796
Is langan seen as a serious intelelct

>>9052797
Absolutely not

File: they-took-our-jobs-guy-they-took-er-jerbs.jpg (12KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 250x250px

>>9052423
They Took Our Jobs!

File: they-took-our-jobs-guy-they-took-our-jobs.jpg (20KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 500x281px

>>9052423 >>9052800
Computers Took Er Jerbs!!!

>>9052797
but couldnt someone claim what Langan is doing is more complex than say the work of Grothendieck

File: wolfram.jpg (6KB, 162x259px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 162x259px

>>9052423
That book is basically slammed by all real mathematicians as pure fraudulent bullshit.

Look at the amazon reviews, those alone are bad enough let alone the reviews on MAA ect.
>One frustrating aspect of this book is Wolfram's unusual arrogance and desire to praise his own accomplishments.

The pic is Wolfram, not George Costanza

>>9052810
again, insults are worthless opinions. Constructive critisism is the only way to change my thinking.

as of now, the sheer fact that he created Mathematica and Wolfram Language takes away all the power out of the "hurrdurr not math" arguments.

he created a digital calcutor almost all by himself, even if it wouldn't be something new it's at least sign the what he has researched and investigated can be applied in reality, what more do you want?!

>>9052818
Who cares about his patent squeezing on software libraries for calculations, this is about his really, really shitty book 'A New Kind of Science'.

I watched his talk about it and it gave me some ideas for machine learning and I managed to beat the state of the art in what I was trying to do so personally I think the ideas are really fucking interesting. Have not read the book.

>>9054169
Nice roleplaying, brainlet.

>>9052825
>>9054250
butthurt much?

File: probability.png (283KB, 714x335px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 714x335px

I'll not forgo an opportunity to post this