Talk:On Numbers and Games

This reads like a hagiography
The tone of this article is terrible. Things like "The book is a mathematics book, written by a preeminent mathematician, and is directed at other mathematicians. The material is, however, developed in a playful and unpretentious manner and many chapters are accessible to non-mathematicians." and " a notation that is essentially an almost trite (but critically important) variation of" are entirely lacking an encyclopedic tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.73.181 (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur. The second example you give is particularly uninformative; telling us that it "[uses] a notation that is essentially an almost trite (but critically important) variation of the Dedekind cut" is the kind of teasing that a patronising – or perhaps confused? – reviewer indulges in. If it's "almost trite", how hard could it be to show us?  And what is "critical" about this variation?  These are weaknesses which it would be easy for a knowledgeable writer to remedy.  Really annoying! yoyo (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I just now fixed the Dedekind cut thing. Hope you like it better. It's hagiographic, because the book is a sheer pleasure to read; its just plain fun. It really is playful (you should see the illustrations), utterly unpretentious, to the point where he writes an entire chapter aimed at the stuffy crowd, in an attempt to justify the liberties and informalities that he's taken. (When I first read it I was struck by that: "what kind of a stuffed shirt would object to that?" but I guess it does contain some "good to know" formalities.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)