he nailed the social factors, but his attempt to describe the mean-value theorem was incoherent, and his attempts at cyber-punky computer descriptions i found to be basically mimicking language without a deep understanding, resulting in something somewhat ridiculous.

i think stuff by e. g. william gibson from even earlier still holds up, so it's not just a "oh, time passed him by" thing.

apparently the book originally had much more of a cyber-punk bent, and his editor convinced him to trim most of that out, which has got to be one of the all-time great wins in editing.

Don't make the mistake of confusing the text in Infinite Jest with David Foster Wallace's actual understanding of the Mean Value Theorem. (Read Everything and More, his really awesome book on the mathematical history of calculus, if you need a demonstration.)

perhaps. but it was in a footnote that seemed to be in the author's voice, rather than some sort of pov garbling.

i've been skeptical yet intrigued by everything & more since forever; will definitely have to pick it up at some point.

IIRC it was Pemulis who was explaining it.

99% of writers would never consider mentioning a theorem of the calculus in a novel; of those who would, 99% would think it was important to get the details right, either to show off or to avoid criticism. And then there's Wallace.