Dubious Math in Infinite Jest (2009)

HN Submission & Title Editing

• Original linked essay just catalogs mathematical errors in Infinite Jest and explicitly disclaims any theory about why they exist.
• The HN submitter initially retitled it to suggest “intentional math errors,” then partially walked that back; others pointed out this violates HN guidelines against editorializing titles.

Are the Math Errors Intentional?

• Some argue errors in Pemulis’s lectures (e.g., misuse of the Mean Value Theorem, incorrect derivative of (x^n)) fit his character: overconfident, bluffing, not as smart as he thinks.
• Others think at least some mistakes (especially the probability one) are too basic and likely just author or copy-editing failures.
• There’s mention that Wallace often insisted “typos” were intentional, which makes intentionality hard to judge.

Pemulis, Hamlet, and Character Reading

• A theory links Pemulis to Polonius from Hamlet: superficially wise but actually wrong, contrasted with Mario as the “fool” who sees truth.
• Some find this compelling and consistent with Pemulis’s frequent wrongness; others note the mapping of roles isn’t clean.

Wallace’s Broader Math Credibility

• Everything and More is debated: one side sees it as error-riddled and evidence that Wallace overreached; another defends it as a flawed but valuable, literary exposition of set theory and infinity.
• Mathematicians in the thread stress that popular math books must simplify carefully; misstatements like tying Cantor’s diagonal argument to the axiom of choice are seen as serious.

Reactions to Infinite Jest Itself

• Some found IJ transformative and reread it multiple times; others bounced off early, finding it self-indulgent, slow, or not worth the effort.
• A recurring theme: it’s a “slog” until ~200–300 pages, then “clicks” and becomes exhilarating for certain readers.
• There’s meta-discussion about IJ as status object, gendered memes around men recommending it, and mild gatekeeping about who has “actually” finished the book.

Comparisons & Related Works

• Readers suggest Pynchon (Gravity’s Rainbow, Inherent Vice, Bleeding Edge, The Crying of Lot 49), House of Leaves, and Pale Fire as spiritually similar or complementary reads.

Math Tangen ts & Specific Points

• One subthread debates whether “alternate universes with different math” are even coherent, with back-and-forth on axioms, continuum hypothesis, and applicability of math to physics.
• Another post supplies a clean asymptotic calculation showing the coin-toss probability in IJ is numerically plausible, independent of the novel’s error.