Jeffrey Shallit was kind enough to mention my book over at his blog. He writes:
A pleasant surprise arrived in the mail today: Jason Rosenhouse's new book, The Monty Hall Problem. I read a first draft of the book and found it excellent.
The second draft is even better, thanks in large part to Jeffrey's heroic proofreading efforts.
Alf van der Poorten says that the definition of a good book is that it mentions you. Under that criterion, this is a very good book indeed, as I appear on the back cover, giving the book an endorsement.I recommend this book to anyone interested in probability.
Which provides a welcome opportunity to publicly thank Jeffrey for the endorsement.
Actually, his comment reminds me of something Michael Kinsley once said about political books. He said that any time a new book is published everyone in politics rushes out to give it a “Washington read.” That means looking your name up in the index as a measure of how important you are.
Physical Science
Comments
"Washington read"! I love it. Its what I do with any book that covers my field (although I use Google Books to avoid having to read the whole thing) :-) I've been cited by a few, too.
Posted by: John S. Wilkins | May 16, 2009 1:29 AM
In Beyond the Hoax, Alan Sokal explains that one of his guiding principles in crafting the nonsensical article which made his name a verb was David Lodge's law of academia: "It is impossible to be excessive in flattery of one's peers."
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 16, 2009 10:06 AM
Google Books to avoid having to read the whole thing) :-)
Posted by: msn nickleri | May 17, 2009 4:04 AM
Google Books to avoid having to read the whole thing) :-)
Posted by: msn nickleri | May 17, 2009 4:04 AM
Google Books to avoid having to read the whole thing) :-)
Posted by: msn nickleri | May 17, 2009 4:04 AM
emegine saglık
Posted by: giyim | June 2, 2009 7:29 AM
emek
Posted by: takım elbise | June 2, 2009 7:41 AM
This problem is so counter intuitive (too some) that when I asked my friend about it who has a degree in statistics, he didn't believe me.
I myself have found a way to realise it though, intuitively. The original probability doesn't change. I find if you amplify it and make say 50 doors, people understand it more intutively.
Posted by: Steven | June 5, 2009 1:00 AM
Interesting! Please type this for another topic. Regards to the author
Posted by: fifa | June 22, 2009 5:29 PM
Interesting! Please type this for another topic. Regards to the author
Posted by: Kredyt - karta kredytowa, kredyt na wakacje :: BANKIER24.Com | August 11, 2009 12:53 PM
Welcome. I think that yes it is. This blog is so interesting that you spend most of his reading of his time. Waiting for the next entries. Yours.
Posted by: Kawa Lavazza. Kawa Ziarnista Illy | August 13, 2009 8:08 AM
Interesting! Please type this for another topic. Regards to the author
Posted by: SSI | August 16, 2009 4:51 PM
Really, very interesting topic. If possible, please more information. This is one of the better blogs that I read.
Posted by: forum prawne | August 21, 2009 1:13 PM
guiding principles in crafting the nonsensical article which made his name a verb was David Lodge's
Posted by: film izle | September 26, 2009 7:05 PM