It never makes the connection explicit

I see you posted a comment asking for that, all is good

I've been watching the International Mathematical Union's awards ceremony today, for new Fields Medallists etc. Hadn't realised that our own @PeterShor was a recipient (24 years ago!) of the Nevanlinna Prize, now awarded for the first time under its new name to Mark Braverman.

@Randal'Thor I have just heard in the news who was awarded the Fields Medal.

Belated congratulations to @PeterShor.

@Tsundoku I think I once attended a talk by James Maynard, but it was around a decade ago and he wasn't a mathematical celebrity at that time, I think just a graduate student in fact.

in case anybody was interested in the Sci-Fi and Fantasy topic-challenge

@bobble Yeah I think the comment (and hopefully an edit from the poster in response) is good

^ is there a connection I'm being blind to?

@bobble The connection is that both books consider the question of whether mechanisms have free will.

@GarethRees so is there any reason to consider that the answer one book provides would apply to the other?

Yes, I think so. In both cases the question is raised in a way that's deliberately paradoxical, pointing out the difficulty but not resolving it, something for the reader to take away and think about for themselves

The answer of course needs some work to bring out this analysis, but the comparison makes sense to me

I hope they expand it

I put a flag on that answer. A general philosophical essay on the free will of anthropomorphised mechanisms in fiction could make a reasonable answer, but just saying "here's what another author did" doesn't really answer the question without more elaboration.

Happy Algerian Independence Day! In honour of Isabelle Eberhardt, one of our current topic challenges.