[voidhorse]

> However I have to assume that McCarthy didn't actually master all the material in the math books mentioned here

Why? And what exactly would mastery look like? Regardless, McCarthy didn't make his mark as a mathematician so his private ability to understand doesn't matter. Why take the opportunity to make a negative assumption and diminish the possibility that he had mastered an understanding in his private life? What does this accomplish? Seems like the only thing it could possibly do is to try and make you and me feel better about our own inadequacies, without proof.

[currymj]

I don't think it diminishes him.

"Stella Maris" is a great novel that could only be written by someone who was very knowledgeable about math. As far as art that engages deeply with math and science, I don't know of anything comparable. Most artists would focus only on the human drama of discovery, without being able to engage with the subject matter.

However, I would consider "mastery" of a math textbook to be you have worked through almost all the chapters, can do a reasonable chunk of the exercises, and could TA the course without too much trouble.

While I don't know for sure, I doubt McCarthy achieved that level of understanding for all the yellow books he owned. I think buying a math textbook on an interesting topic and then not making it very far is a very common and human experience.

[da-bacon]

Agree that “Stella Maris” is amazing for this deep engagement with art. Perhaps in a similar vein I do think there are a couple of other books that do this . One is Anathem by Neal Stephenson, which is similar in that foundations of math makes an appearance. The other is “The Weyl Conjectures” by Karen Olson, which captures what it’s like to really do mathematics. Highly recommend both.