The

problem with criticizing others is that you have to apply the same

standards to your own work. So, as of this afternoon, I do agree with

all those who said so before : my book is completely unreadable and

should either be dumped or entirely rewritten!

Here’s what happened :

Last week I did receive the contract to publish _noncommutative

geometry@n_ in a reputable series. One tiny point though, the editors

felt that the title was somewhat awkward and would stand out with

respect to the other books in the series, so they proposed as an

alternative title _Noncommutative Geometry_. A tall order, I thought,

but then, if others are publishing books with such a title why

shouldn’t I do the same?

The later chapters are quite general, anyway,

and if I would just spice them up a little adding recent material it

might even improve the book. So, rewriting two chapters and perhaps

adding another “motivational chapter” aimed at physicists… should

be doable in a month, or two at the latest which would fit in nicely

with the date the final manuscript is due.

This week, I got myself once

again in writing mode : painfully drafting new sections at a pace of 5

to 6 pages a day. Everything was going well. Today I wanted to finish

the section on the “one quiver to rule them all”-trick and was

already mentally planning the next section in which I would give details

for groups like $PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ and $GL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $, all I

needed was to type in a version of the proof of the last proposition.

The proof uses a standard argument, which clearly should be in the book

so I had to give the correct reference and started browsing through the

print-out of the latest version (about 600 pages long..) but… _I

could not find it!???_ And, it was not just some minor technical lemma,

but a result which is crucial to the book’s message (for the few who

want to know, the result is the construction and properties of the local

quiver at a semi-simple representation of a Quillen-smooth algebra). Of

course, there is a much more general result contained in the book, but

you have to be me (or have to be drilled by me) to see the connection…

Not good at all! I’d better sleep on this before taking further

steps

## Comments