Mathematical cranks

What Hacker News says

1. lbruckJan 2026
   Underwood Dudley has written more comprehensive books about mathematical cranks (in general) and trisectors (in particular) which are a delight to read.
   thread
2. IsamuAug 2022
   There’s a great book on Mathematical Cranks where one of the recurring themes is that the intuition must always be correct, and anything that seems counterintuitive is abhorrent and must be wrong.
   thread
3. breadboxMay 2017
   In addition to publishing a book-sized collection of failed angle trisections, Underwood Dudley is also the author of "Mathematical Cranks" (978-0883855072), which gives a broad and fascinating descriptions of all sorts of examples of the species. It remains one of my favorite books for the wide range of examples and a few insights into how crankery develops in otherwise sensible people.
   thread
4. IsamuJan 2016
   >It's psychological and goes much deeper than beliefs.

   Oh yes! And you can get into trouble trying to engage with logic, because that is not the name of the game.

   >I've been perversely interested in this

   Me too, and with other crankery. I recommend the book Mathematical Cranks for similar entertainment.

   https://books.google.com/books/about/Mathematical_Cranks.htm...

   Maybe I am interested in it because you begin to see small reflections of similar behavior everywhere once you start looking for it.

   It seems rare at first, but now I think similar thinking is to be found everywhere, on lots of topics. It is really mostly a strident, emotional attachment to a point of view that is not founded on a desire to find the truth.

   It is founded on a deep personal association. To deny your personal "truth" would be like tearing down your view of yourself. So instead it must be defended at all costs, which is fine because you already are certain it is "true".

   Show morethread
5. zahlmanJun 2026
   > The source I linked to above cites Mathematical Cranks by Underwood Dudley, but I couldn’t find it in the book.

   I don't know why someone would make an AI slop fake of old mathematical crankery, but I think that has to be considered as a possibility. Especially given that the formula is being attributed to Dudley, who was actually cataloguing the nonsense of others.

   (Also, a conventional Internet search tells me that Dudley was born in 1937, not 1912; and that rather than dying in 2005, he is still alive.)

   (Perhaps Cook noticed these things and is too polite to point them out?)

   Show morethread