At the bottom of posts starting around January, 2011 there is (with very few exceptions) always something titled “References”. It has occurred to me that this is a slightly misleading term. Usually when one uses ‘references’ they mean that they have referred to some particular passage, or some particular theorem–in my blog that is not usually the case. I generally try to write all my blog posts “from memory”, because copying it out of a book seems to defeat the point of writing-to-learn but not being perfect I do eventually do have to look at some proofs or theorems for a refresher. That said, most of the time I don’t do this and my knowledge base comes from multiple books. So, for example I may have discussed something that is found primarily in book A while I referenced on book B in the references. So, clearly most of the time references is not an apt description of what the books listed are to mean. Nor is necessarily true that what I call ‘references’ should be considered ‘further reading’ since this implies that I have gone so far, and if you want to learn more you should look there. Perhaps the best way to put what I mean by references is “Books, that if you wanted to find material similar to what I have written about you could look at”–eloquent, I know :).
No comments yet.