ou
Identifiez-vous pour activer la commande 1-Click.
ou
en essayant gratuitement Amazon Premium pendant 30 jours. Votre inscription aura lieu lors du passage de la commande. En savoir plus.
Amazon Rachète votre article
Recevez un chèque-cadeau de EUR 10,83
Amazon Rachète cet article
Plus de choix
Vous l'avez déjà ? Vendez votre exemplaire ici
Désolé, cet article n'est pas disponible en
Image non disponible pour la
couleur :
Image non disponible

 
Dites-le à l'éditeur :
J'aimerais lire ce livre sur Kindle !

Vous n'avez pas encore de Kindle ? Achetez-le ici ou téléchargez une application de lecture gratuite.

A New Kind of Science [Anglais] [Relié]

Stephen Wolfram
2.8 étoiles sur 5  Voir tous les commentaires (4 commentaires client)
Prix : EUR 34,45 LIVRAISON GRATUITE En savoir plus.
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
Il ne reste plus que 3 exemplaire(s) en stock (d'autres exemplaires sont en cours d'acheminement).
Expédié et vendu par Amazon. Emballage cadeau disponible.
Voulez-vous le faire livrer le samedi 19 avril ? Choisissez la livraison en 1 jour ouvré sur votre bon de commande. En savoir plus.

Formats

Prix Amazon Neuf à partir de Occasion à partir de
Relié EUR 34,45  

Offres spéciales et liens associés


Les clients ayant consulté cet article ont également regardé


Descriptions du produit

A New Kind of Science Challenging the traditional mathematical model of scientific description, a scientist proposes a new dynamic computational approach that utilizes simple codes to generate patterns of ultimate complexity. Full description

Détails sur le produit

  • Relié: 1197 pages
  • Editeur : Wolfram Media Inc (1 juin 2002)
  • Langue : Anglais
  • ISBN-10: 1579550088
  • ISBN-13: 978-1579550080
  • Dimensions du produit: 24,6 x 20,7 x 6,3 cm
  • Moyenne des commentaires client : 2.8 étoiles sur 5  Voir tous les commentaires (4 commentaires client)
  • Classement des meilleures ventes d'Amazon: 34.809 en Livres anglais et étrangers (Voir les 100 premiers en Livres anglais et étrangers)
  •  Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?


En savoir plus sur l'auteur

Découvrez des livres, informez-vous sur les écrivains, lisez des blogs d'auteurs et bien plus encore.

Dans ce livre (En savoir plus)
Parcourir les pages échantillon
Couverture | Copyright | Table des matières | Extrait | Index | Quatrième de couverture
Rechercher dans ce livre:

Vendre une version numérique de ce livre dans la boutique Kindle.

Si vous êtes un éditeur ou un auteur et que vous disposez des droits numériques sur un livre, vous pouvez vendre la version numérique du livre dans notre boutique Kindle. En savoir plus

Commentaires en ligne 

2.8 étoiles sur 5
2.8 étoiles sur 5
Commentaires client les plus utiles
13 internautes sur 15 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
3.0 étoiles sur 5 Why take sides! 6 juillet 2003
Format:Relié
I can't really assign stars: Five would be as meaningful as one. It is hard to know what to say about the book, and many reviews have been negative, some extremely so. Yet for a science book, its amazon sales ranking is very good indeed. The book generated several scholarly reviews in major math and science journals, but the reviewers couldn't agree on what the book is about, so I will not try to characterize it is a one-paragraph review. Wolfram tries to identify a simple idea that unifies major trends in science. Many reviewers say that the idea is not original,--- that it is far from new, and that Wolfram doesn't achieve his goal. Judge for yourself. Parts of the book read well, and other parts tend to rant, making it hard to see what the gist of the argument is. The camps of readers and reviewers are very divided. I would say, 'Why take sides!' To me, the book and the many reviews are fun to read, and they generated a lot of discussion. More than what can be said about most math books. So that was reason enough for me to buy the book. Very few of my colleagues will admit to having bought it, even if asked. Some positive features of Wolfram's book. * Opinionated discussions of points of history of science. * It is rare to get a book from a scientist which is personal, but I don't see what is wrong with it. You don't have to agree with the author. Actually, I don't but I had fun reading several parts of the book. * The book is about ideas rather than formulas... --- To no one's surprise, the two Spotlight Reviews on amazon are flaming, devastating, and perhaps over the top...etc etc. The book itself has a lot more negative reviews than positives, not only on the amazon product page, and it seems to have inspired a cult of haters. I am neutral in this flaming war, but the book does have lots of weak points, I should say. No question about it. Its positives shouldn't get completely buried.
Avez-vous trouvé ce commentaire utile ?
3.0 étoiles sur 5 On s'y perd 26 février 2014
Par aeiou
Format:Relié|Achat authentifié par Amazon
Livre d'obsessionnel. Incroyable qu'il ait été édité. Des centaines de pages de copies de diagrammes d'états d'automates cellulaires... Soit c'est totalement révolutionnaire, style génie incompris. Soit l'auteur est limite psychotique, en tout cas tout à fait obsessionnel, et aurait pu aller droit au but, en 100 pages, et ç'aurait été passionnant. Là, par le poids et la répétition, l'ouvrage finit par tomber des mains
Avez-vous trouvé ce commentaire utile ?
17 internautes sur 24 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
1.0 étoiles sur 5 Une arnaque scientifique 1 décembre 2003
Par Un client
Format:Relié
Wolfram vit depuis des années reclus de la communauté scientifique et prétend dans ce livre fonder "a new kind of science". Le moins que l'on puisse dire est que le pari est loin d'être atteint. Certes les idées sous jacentes semblent attrayantes- et d'ailleurs la plupart sont ne sont pas de l'auteur-, mais ce livre ressemble davantage à un catalogue de programmes, destinés selon l'auteur à servir de briques de base à une nouvelle interprétation de sciences aussi diverses que la physique ou la biologie. On a parfois l'impression que l'auteur s'est laissé abusé par ses algorithmes Mathematica (programme qu'il a conçu) et qu'il a oublié qu'un scientifique ne peut se contenter d'observer: il doit aussi comprendre et éventuellement généraliser ses observations. On voit mal ce que ce (long) catalogue pourrait apporter à la science en général, faute de discussions scientifiques précises et argumentées au-delà du simple constat. C'est là que se situe à mon sens toute la prétention (dans le mauvais sens du terme) de ce livre : prétendre expliquer des principes généraux profonds tels que le second principe de la thermodynamique par une vague analogie avec les comportements de certains programmes est totalement injustifié d'un point de vue scientifique. Mon écoeurement est à la mesure de l'attente qu'avait suscité en moi ce livre...
Avez-vous trouvé ce commentaire utile ?
1 internautes sur 122 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
Format:Relié
Nous sommes dans une ère où la libre circulation d'information est possible, la science devient plus proche de notre quoditienté. Voici un livre ambitieux qui pourrait révolutionner notre vision du monde. J'ai commandé A New Kind Of Science y a 2 semaines, pas encore lu, mais je suis sur que ce livre contient des choses tres interessantes. Achetez le!
Avez-vous trouvé ce commentaire utile ?
Commentaires client les plus utiles sur Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 2.9 étoiles sur 5  360 commentaires
2.828 internautes sur 2.949 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
1.0 étoiles sur 5 The Emperor's New Kind of Clothes 28 février 2003
Par Joe Weiss - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Relié
This review took almost one year. Unlike many previous referees (rank them by Amazon.com's "most helpful" feature) I read all 1197 pages including notes. Just to make sure I won't miss the odd novel insight hidden among a million trivial platitudes.
On page 27 Wolfram explains "probably the single most surprising discovery I have ever made:" a simple program can produce output that seems irregular and complex.
This has been known for six decades. Every computer science (CS) student knows the dovetailer, a very simple 2 line program that systematically lists and executes all possible programs for a universal computersuch as a Turing machine (TM). It computes all computable patterns, including all those in Wolfram's book, embodies the well-known limits of computability, and is basis of uncountable CS exercises.
Wolfram does know (page 1119) Minsky's very simple universal TMs from the 1960s. Using extensive simulations, he finds a slightly simpler one. New science? Small addition to old science. On page 675 we find a particularly simple cellular automaton (CA) and Matthew Cook's universality proof(?). This might be the most interesting chapter. It reflects that today's PCs are more powerful systematic searchers for simple rules than those of 40 years ago. No new paradigm though.
Was Wolfram at least first to view programs as potential explanations of everything? Nope. That was Zuse. Wolfram mentions him in exactly one line (page 1026): "Konrad Zuse suggested that [the universe] could be a continuous CA." This is totally misleading. Zuse's 1967 paper suggested the universe is DISCRETELY computable, possibly on a DISCRETE CA just like Wolfram's. Wolfram's causal networks (CA's with variable toplogy, chapter 9) will run on any universal CA a la Ulam & von Neumann & Conway & Zuse. Page 715 explains Wolfram's "key unifying idea" of the "principle of computational equivalence:" all processes can be viewed as computations. Well, that's exactly what Zuse wrote 3 decades ago.
Chapter 9 (2nd law of thermodynamics) elaborates (without reference)on Zuse's old insight that entropy cannot really increase in deterministically computed systems, although it often SEEMS to increase. Wolfram extends Zuse's work by a tiny margin, using today's more powerful computers to perform experiments as suggested in Zuse's 1969 book. I find it embarassing how Wolfram tries to suggest it was him who shifted a paradigm, not the legendary Zuse.
Some reviews cite Wolfram's previous reputation as a physicist and software entrepreneur, giving him the benefit of the doubt instead of immediately dismissing him as just another plagiator. Zuse's reputation is in a different league though: He built world's very first general purpose computers (1935-1941), while Wolfram is just one of many creators of useful software (Mathematica). Remarkably, in his history of computing (page 1107) Wolfram appears to try to diminuish Zuse's contributions by only mentioning Aiken's later 1944 machine.
On page 465 ff (and 505 ff on multiway systems) Wolfram asks whether there is a simple program that computes the universe. Here he sounds like Schmidhuber in his 1997 paper "A Computer Scientist's View of Life, the Universe, and Everything." Schmidhuber applied the above-mentioned simple dovetailer to all computable universes. His widely known writings come out on top when you google for "computable universes" etc, so Wolfram must have known them too, for he read an "immense number of articles books and web sites" (page xii) and executed "more than a hundred thousand mouse miles" (page xiv). He endorses Schmidhuber's "no-CA-but-TM approach" (page 486, no reference) but not his suggestion of using Levin's asymptotically optimal program searcher (1973) to find our universe's code.
On page 469 we are told that the simplest program for the data is the most probable one. No mention of the very science based on this ancient principle: Solomonoff's inductive inference theory (1960-1978); recent optimality results by Merhav & Feder & Hutter. Following Schmidhuber's "algorithmic theories of everything" (2000), short world-explaining programs are necessarily more likely, provided the world is sampled from a limit-computable prior distribution. Compare Li & Vitanyi's excellent 1997 textbook on Kolmogorov complexity.
On page 628 ff we find a lot of words on human thinking and short programs. As if this was novel! Wolfram seems totally unaware of Hutter's optimal universal rational agents (2001) based on simple programs a la Solomonoff & Kolmogorov & Levin & Chaitin. Wolfram suggests his simple programs will contribute to fine arts (page 11), neither mentioning existing, widely used, very short, fractal-based programs for computing realistic images of mountains and plants, nor the only existing art form explicitly based on simple programs: Schmidhuber's low-complexity art.
Wolfram talks a lot about reversible CAs but little about Edward Fredkin & Tom Toffoli who pioneered this field. He ignores Wheeler's "it from bit," Tegmark & Greenspan & Petrov & Marchal's papers, Moravec & Kurzweil's somewhat related books, and Greg Egan's fun SF on CA-based universes (Permutation City, 1995).
When the book came out some non-expert journalists hyped it without knowing its contents. Then cognoscenti had a look at it and recognized it as a rehash of old ideas, plus pretty pictures. And the reviews got worse and worse. As far as I can judge, positive reviews were written only by people without basic CS education and little knowledge of CS history. Some biologists and even a few physicists initially were impressed because to them it really seemed new. Maybe Wolfram's switch from physics to CS explains why he believes his thoughts are radical, not just reinventions of the wheel.
But he does know Goedel and Zuse and Turing. He must see that his own work is minor in comparison. Why does he desparately try to convince us otherwise? When I read Wolfram's first praise of the originality of his own ideas I just had to laugh. The tenth time was annoying. The hundredth time was boring. And that was my final feeling when I laid down this extremely repetitive book:exhaustion and boredom. In hindsight I know I could have saved my time. But at least I can warn others.
959 internautes sur 1.002 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
3.0 étoiles sur 5 If a million scientists worked on a million experiments ... 21 mai 2002
Par Thomas Martin - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Relié
If a million scientists worked on a million experiments for three hundred years, would they learn as much about the universe as Stephen Wolfram does by sitting at his computer for twenty years?
Apparently not, according to Stephen Wolfram.
I'm annoyed with Wolfram for forcing me to poke fun at him like this. I've been waiting for this book a long time, and I genuinely wanted to give it a thumbs up. Unfortunately, Wolfram has made that impossible.
I gave the book three stars, but in fact I consider it almost un-ratable. What do you do with a 1200-page tome that contains a wealth of substantive and fascinating results, but which is insists, at every turn, to draw over-blown and under-supported conclusions from them? I split the difference and gave it a middling rating, but that does not convey the deep ambivalence I feel toward this work.
Given Wolfram's reputation, I expected a certain amount of hubris, and even looked forward to it. Most scientists work hard to suppress the egotism that drives them, but Wolfram's ego is out there in the open. While this can be refreshing, what I found here left me dumbfounded. For Wolfram, all of scientific history is either prelude or footnote to his own work on 1-D cellular automata. On pages 12-16 he breezily sites other work in chaos theory, non-linear dynamics and complexity theory. At the end of the book, there are hundreds of pages of footnotes describing previous history as essentially one damn thing after another - a testament to all the people that didn't see the promised land, as he has.
Wolfram attempts to usurp all credit for the "computational perspective." Assertions such as "the discoveries in this book showing that simple rules can lead to complex behavior" are repeated to the point of exhaustion. But his attempt to shock us falls flat: if that idea was ever radical, it surely would not be considered so today. The other fields that Wolfram casually dismisses have provided strong indications of the power of this principle, as well as the idea that many diverse systems are computationally equivalent. An entire generation of physicists has grown up quite accustom to these notions.
Wolfram did make very substantial and important contributions to the study of complex systems in the early eighties. But he was not the only one, and those studies have not induced a wholesale revision of science. Despite what he would have us believe, the general concepts he espouses are not that radical. It would probably be more accurate to call them expressions of the modern scientific zeitgeist.
Meanwhile, some of Wolfram's specific claims are indeed very novel, but only because they are breathtakingly arrogant. Consider his comments on two famous scientific principles: The second law of thermodynamics, and evolution by means of natural selection. Both these principles date from the mid-nineteenth century. Both have incited considerable controversy, and both have withstood mountains of empirical observations from diverse sources. Wolfram, however, calls both of them into question. Why? Because he has done 1-D cellular automations simulations on his computer that he feels make them suspicious. How does Wolfram expect to be taken seriously when he makes such assertions almost non-chalantly?
Wolfram lacks any hint of balance in assessing the true place of his results. He admits to having been a recluse for years, and it shows. The desire to free oneself of the mainstream community, to allow oneself to be more creative, is understandable and healthy. But one concomitantly loses the critical faculty that derives from being part of a dynamic community. Though Wolfram will likely never see it, what he lost by pulling away from the world has substantially outweighed what he gained. Consequently, his loss has become ours. We did not get the much shorter, but wiser, book that lurks somewhere inside this one.
288 internautes sur 305 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
1.0 étoiles sur 5 What it is, and why it disappoints 14 octobre 2002
Par Un client - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Relié
This is a book of ruminations about cellular automata. It is chiefly concerned with the way that the state of a system evolves when deterministic rules are applied to it. The simplest system is a single point in either state 0 or state 1. The transition rule could be that the state "0" changes to state "1", and state "1" changes to state "0". That rule can be expressed as follows.
{1->0, 0->1}
If the system's initial state is 1, then the transition rule (repeatedly applied) yields the following alternating pattern of states.
1
0
1
0
.
.
For hundreds of pages the author discusses the behavior of 1-dimensional automata built from 3-cell transition rules. The 2^3=8 different states of a 3-cell cluster can be written in binary notation from 000 up to 111. The cell in the middle can transition to either of two binary states, yielding a total of 2^8=256 rules. Most rules lead to periodically repeating behaviors, with short periods like the alternating pattern shown above.
An exception is rule 30 (30 in binary is 00011110; these bits the right-hand-side values for the 8 transitions).
rule 30:
{ 111->0, 110->0, 101->0, 100->1, 011->1, 010->1, 001->1, 000->0 }
When applied to an initial state of a single 1 surrounded by 0's, rule 30 generates the following pattern (developing downward from the top row). The array can be displayed as a bitmap of black and white pixels, producing a visualization of the evolving state of the horizontal rows.
..00000000100000000..
..00000001110000000..
..00000011001000000..
..00000110111100000..
..00001100100010000..
..00011011110111000..
..00110010000100100..
..01101111001111110..
What excites many people about such rules (and about replacement grammars in general) is that applying the rule to an input string produces new strings whose characteristics are hard to predict. Plus, the patterns in the resulting visualization look pretty cool and are suggestive of all sorts of things found in nature. It's very easy to write computer code that will generate the patterns based on input rules, so anybody can play the game.
Lots of people have implemented cellular automata and been fascinated that the behavior is so sensitive to the choice of input string and transition rules. Watching the patterns unfold is a bit like playing the slot machines. So many possibilities. So fun to watch. Addictive to play. Great to show your friends. A meme that keeps on meming. Search the Web for "one-dimensional cellular automata" and "applet" and you will find examples that you can run in your browser.
What bothers many readers about the book is that it is like an undergraduate honors project gone haywire. Page after page of printouts of these things. Thousands of them. And with endless streams of the impressions they made on the author. "My Daily Journal of Cellular Automata" would have been a fair title. Wolfram's inflated sense of their importance, and his own, is evident in the copyright statement:
Discoveries and ideas introduced in this book, whether presented at length or not, and the legal rights and goodwill associated with them, represent valuable property of Stephen Wolfram ..
Thus he lays claim to every cellular automaton and any application thereof. Pretty annoying, coming from someone arriving late to the automaton party.
He concludes of the book proper (pp. 844-845, just before his 350 additional pages of "notes") that
.. building on what I have discovered in this book .. there is nothing fundamentally special about us. .. For my discoveries imply that whether the underlying system is a human brain, a turbulent fluid, or a cellular automaton, the behavior it exhibits will correspond to a computation of equivalent sophistication. .. [W]hat my discoveries and the Principle of Computational Equivalence now show is that .. cellular automata can achieve exactly the same level of computational sophistication as anything else.
Wolfram discovery/epiphany appears to be that all algorithms can be computed by a simple model. An example of such a model, called the "Turing machine", is taught every semester to computer science students worldwide.
It excites many people that the physical world is inherently computable, allowing computational simulations to have predictive value. It is bizarre to read Wolfram represent that he is the author of this insight.
142 internautes sur 150 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
1.0 étoiles sur 5 Not new, not science, or not Wolfram 1 juin 2002
Par Un client - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Relié
Of course I didn't read *everything* in this enormous
book, but 100% of the sample passages read so far
can be described by the title of the review. For example,
the idea that the universe may be run by a simple cellular
automaton is not new (I heard it from Edward Fredkin 15 years
ago), and the Principle of Computational Equivalence is
not science, since it is stated so vaguely it can never
be disproved. The one *very nice* new scientific result
found in the book so far, that the rule 110 is computationally
universal, is not due to Wolfram, but to his young
employee Matthew Cook, who does receive some acknowledgment
in the small print in the back of the book, but who was prevented
to publish his work by Wolfram's lawyers for years, while
the Master was finishing his Book.
As a review of ideas close to Wolfram's heart, this
could be an interesting book to read, but it suffers
terribly from repetitious self-congratulations and
high-flying but vague pronounciations. A good editor
should have made the book about 300 pages long, then
I would have probably recommended it. A scientist
who works in isolation needs a high degree of self-criticism
to succeed, and this is exactly what Wolfram sorely lacks.
270 internautes sur 293 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile 
4.0 étoiles sur 5 Mind candy 16 juin 2002
Par "zasanfran" - Publié sur Amazon.com
Format:Relié
A New Kind Of Science may come to be viewed as the Godel, Escher, Bach of our generation. It's full of challenging big ideas that touch on nearly every field of science and beyond. It's a brilliant and delightful read and makes wonderful mind candy.
The only problem is I don't believe any of it. Wolfram bases the entire opus on the complicated behavior of a few simple cellular automata (CAs). Curiously, he never discusses any of the cool things that originally got a lot of people so excited about CAs -- topics like adaptation on the edge of chaos, and genetic algorithm evolution of specific functions. Instead, the entire book is just about how it's sometimes possible to observe complex and unpredictable patterns. And he tries over and over to convince the reader of just how important that observation is for understanding the universe.
As a supposed harbinger of a major paradigm revolution, we can contrast it with Einstein's one-time dramatic new theory of the universe. While a lot of people didn't understand it, the theories of relativity gave quite a few very specific predictions that could be -- and were successfully -- tested by observation and experiment. I've now read through the entirety of A New Kind Of Science and I can't find any specific predictions that would show his worldview explains reality any better than conventional ideas.
The only prediction he gives us relating to his theories is that every field of science will ultimately be transformed by them, and he goes on to list many of those fields. As I have a doctorate in molecular evolution, I was particularly interested in his dismissal of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection -- one of the most firmly established theories in science. Wolfram claims that Darwinian evolution is not sufficient to produce complex adaptations. I'm loathe to criticize an intellectual of Wolfram's stature, but his understanding of evolutionary theory, at least insofar as is presented in this book, is not very sophisticated. At any rate, anyone wanting an authoritative explication of the power of natural selection to generate complex adaptations may refer to Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. I wish Wolfram offered some sort of testable alternative, or evidence of any kind beyond an endless display of pictures of the output of his simple programs. While the output may match the complexity observed in nature, Wolfram never makes the case that they match the adaptivity or intelligence observed in nature.
Many of these pictures are indeed very pretty. But by the fourth or fifth hundred page his obsession with these automata becomes a bit tedious. And the outworldly conclusions he draws from observing their behavior will leave you bumfuzzled. For example: because his automata are discrete in space and in time he proposes (with no further justification) that the entire universe must be made up of discrete cells of space and time. Sounds great, but where's the evidence, and where are the testable hypotheses? He goes on to propose, again with no evidence other than the observed behavior of a select few of his automata, that the mysterious rules of the universe update only one discrete time cell at any given instant. Wolfram offers countless other extrapolations to the mechanisms of nature and structure of the universe, all similarly astounding and similarly unsupported.
As I read through this opus, and especially as I neared the end, I kept asking myself -- How is it possible for someone so brilliant to have spent so many years developing something so uncompelling? I came up with three possible explanations:
1) Wolfram has gone off the deep end. Just like Dr. Richard Daystrom of Star Trek's "The Ultimate Computer", the undisputed genius who goes mad trying to exceed his former glory. Perhaps Wolfram has been staring at his pretty pictures for so long his synapses can no longer make any other kind of connection.
2) Wolfram is perpetrating an elaborate hoax on the world, much like Dr. Alan Sokal's famous "Transgressing the Boundaries" paper, a parody of the academic humanities that the editors of Social Text were fooled into publishing. But Wolfram's physics flimflam is writ on an infinitely larger scale. Just to prove he's so much smarter than every one else, and just as a practical joke, he's trying to derail the entire scientific enterprise.
And finally,
3) I have become so entrenched in the practice and paradigms of traditional science that I am unable to grasp or appreciate the profundity of what's been laid before me in the simplest of terms.
Number three is always possible. And in fact it would be wonderful to bear witness to what he's calling the greatest discovery in the history of science, even if it does fly over my head at Mach 2. Wolfram is one of the smartest and most accomplished residents of the universe, and even though one of the basic tenets of the (traditional) scientific method is that the validity of a claim is judged independently of the stature and reputation of the one who proposes it, it's difficult not to give someone like Wolfram the benefit of the doubt -- no matter how much of a stretch.
All the same, I recommend this book to anyone who enjoys being intellectually stimulated and likes to think about big ideas. Even if he's wrong, I'm sure glad I read it.
Ces commentaires ont-ils été utiles ?   Dites-le-nous
Rechercher des commentaires
Rechercher uniquement parmi les commentaires portant sur ce produit
ARRAY(0xaa4576d8)

Discussions entre clients

Le forum concernant ce produit
Discussion Réponses Message le plus récent
Pas de discussions pour l'instant

Posez des questions, partagez votre opinion, gagnez en compréhension
Démarrer une nouvelle discussion
Thème:
Première publication:
Aller s'identifier
 

Rechercher parmi les discussions des clients
Rechercher dans toutes les discussions Amazon
   


Rechercher des articles similaires par rubrique


Commentaires

Souhaitez-vous compléter ou améliorer les informations sur ce produit ? Ou faire modifier les images?