I'm looking for books for actual intellectuals and smart people like pic related. And not Philosophical works because they are the lowest tier of "intellectualism". I can even proof it.Math > Physics > Chemistry > Biology > Psychology > Sociology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy. So no need to apply. Only serious works.
>>25023204>A pop math book (admittedly one I think is pretty good) is more intellectual than Proclus or Saint MaximosIf you really need muh formalism to appreciate things, check out this attempt to formalize some of Proclus advances in logic.Or if you want to really explode your mind check out category theoretic approaches to Hegel's Greater Logic.
>>25023208
>>25023208Is it good? It looks engaging but i don't really like metaphysics.
>>25023204It seems that you have read too little about mathematics. There's a lot of philosophy in some of these books:>What is Mathematics?: An Elementary Approach to Ideas and Methods - Richard Courant, Herbert Robbins, Ian Stewart>Anatomy of Mathematics, The - R. B. Kershner, L. R. Wilcox>Mathematics: It's Content, Method and Meaning - A. D. Aleksandrov et al.>Mathematics and its History - John Stillwell>A Mathematical Bridge: An Intuitive Journey in Higher Mathematics - Stephen Fletcher Hewson>Mathematics, Form and Function - Saunders Mac Lane>Mathematics: The Music of Reason - Jean A. Dieudonné>James R. Newman's The World of Mathematics>Timothy Gowers's Princeton Companion to Mathematics>The Mathematical Experience: Study Edition - Philip J. Davis, Reuben Hersh, Elena Anne Marchisotto>A Mathematician's Apology - G. H. Hardy>Calculus: A Liberal Art (a.k.a. Historical Approach) - William McGowen Priestley>Alice in Numberland: A Students' Guide to the Enjoyment of Mathematics - John Baylis & Rod Haggarty>Journey into Mathematics: An Introduction to Proofs - Joseph J. Rotman>Proof, Logic, and Conjecture: The Mathematician's Toolbox - Robert S. Wolf>Bridge to Abstract Mathematics: Mathematical Proof and Structures - Ronald P. Morash>Foundations and Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics - Howard Eves>Fundamentals of Abstract Analysis - Andrew M. Gleason>Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery - Imre Lakatos>The Enjoyment of Mathematics - Hans Rademacher & Otto Toeplitz>Mathematics and Logic - Mark Kac, Stanislaw Ulam>The Pleasures of Counting - Thomas William Körner>Mathematics and the Imagination - Edward Kasner & James Newman, with preface and review by Jorge Luis Borges >Logicomix: An Epic Search for Truth by Apostolos Doxiadis & Christos Papadimitriou>Mathematics Made Difficult: A Handbook for the Perplexed - Carl E. Linderholm>Surreal Numbers: A Mathematical Novelette - Donald Knuth>Récoltes et Semailles - Alexander Grothendieck
>>25023385Have you truly read all of these?
>>25023204mathfags be like>you can use math to predict everything!*never predicts anything*
>>25023486Has the average poster on /lit/'s top 100 thread read all of those? The point is that reading only one or maybe two of this list can change one's mind about the relation between mathematics and philosophy. I forgot to add Timothy Gower's A Very Short Introduction to Mathematics, its bibliography and further reading suggestions contains some of the books on this list, like other books i read and books on the very list. Another reason for including items on the list is the authors: important mathematicians like Courant, Mac Lane, Dieudonné, Gleason, Knuth, Grothendieck. It is also worth reading foundational worth Dedekind and Hilbert.
You will never be smart
>>25023204Logic is older and more refined than math and it comes from philosophy. Cope, stemcel.
Instead of reading pop math slop, pick up an introductory textbook on any of the following you find interesting, or ideally all four (not all at once, maybe two at a time):Calculus (rigorous, not simplified for engineers)Number theoryLinear algebra (again, rigorous)Abstract algebraYou can start immediately with no prior knowledge. You're probably early twenties tops, so your brain is at its peak when it comes to understanding shit like this.
>>25023593Spare me your drivel Philosicuck. Math predates everything. It's the language of the Universe itself. Everything stems forth from Mathematics. Philosophy is just applied sociology. Which is already shit tier.
>>25023685Congrats, you are a Platonist and don't even know it.
>>25023685>claims to be intellectual and smart>stirs shit on /lit/ and fights anonymous petty disputes over subjective topicswe got a genius right here boys
>>25023204>Math > Physics > Chemistry > Biology > Psychology > Sociology >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy. Math good. Physics good. Chemistry good. Biology good. Trash. Trash. Philosophy good.
>>25023385Based. Thanks fren
>>25023685>>25023685>Philosophy is just applied sociologyThere is philosophy of being/existence (metaphysics and ontology), philosophy of knowledge (epistemology), philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematics. It may be true that you can apply sociology to moral and political philosophy, but this goes to other way around too. How would you apply sociology to the philosophy of set theory or the philosophy of the mind-body problem?https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-animal/
Introductory Mathematical Analysis for Quantative Finance. Because honestly if you can't do quant work profitably then you are not le intellectual for applied maths. You also are not an intellectual if you don't understand the proofs and how to prove, so you probably want How to Prove it: a Structured Approach, and Proofs: A Transition to Advanced Mathematics. Also if you haven't learned other languages (preferably at least one dead because they're very useful for literature) and I don't mean for immigration purposes, you are also not le intellectual. And if you can't read a symphony's music then you are also not an intellectual. And if you haven't memorized at least a hundred pages worth of poetry then you are not an intellectual One that's taken care of you should read the eleven volume Handbook of the History of Logic. Then the 9-11 volume A History of Philosophy.
>>25023204so you want a gay science book that teaches you trivial nonsense about what is, and nothing about what should be?
>>25023204Start with the Greeks
>>25023685>Math predates everything. It's the language of the Universe itself.then why aren't you writing in math so i don't have to read this drivel
>>25023553Based take. Math triumphs. Also adding Gödel, Escher, Bach.
>>25023204read Decline of the West. and be sure to read all of it. even the boring parts.Learn to think.>??????>profit
>>25023777>about what isIsn't that the point though?
>>25023782The Greeks being mostly Euclid in the context of this thread. But even Plato may have been of importance to Euclid.>Ἀγεωμέτρητος μηδεὶς εἰσίτω (Ageōmétrētos mēdeìs eisítō)>Non mi legga chi non è matematico nelli mia principi.https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Levi_Beppo_Terracini/https://archive.org/details/levi-beppo-leyendo-a-euclides
>>25023777>I need someone to tell me what I should believe You can just use twitter
>>25023832no, the point of learning is to find out what should and shouldn't be. even descartes was ultimately saying we shouldn't be merely erudite and we should only learn rational knowledge that is true.>>25023911i am interested in alternative, interesting perspectives. NOT what some rando thinks should be
>>25023894>levi-beppo-leyendo-a-euclidesLooks interesting. Is there an English version of this?
>>25023998>i am interested in alternative, interesting perspectives. NOT what some rando thinks should beEuclid, Euler, Gauss, Archimedes, Newton, von Neumann, Turing....randos.
>>25024087oh are all those guys on twitter?
>>25023204If math is superior OP then why is your post written using language?
>>25024101Gee i wonder how we represent variables and functions. I guess we will never know.
>>25024131You should discuss math using math like Gödel intended.
>>25024070>>25024070>levi-beppo-leyendo-a-euclides>Looks interesting. Is there an English version of this?Sadly, it looks like there isn't one, that's the reason for the first link:>In 1947 Levi published Leyendo a Euclides. L M Blumenthal writes in a review:->>This pleasant little book records in informal fashion some thoughts of a mathematician occasioned by a reading of Euclid's 'Elements'. Though the author disclaims any intention of writing a serious historical study or a modern critique of Euclid, there is much of both in the book.>[...] Leyendo a Euclides, is a book, pleasant to read, written with the intention of presenting without pretensions to a non-mathematical public the thoughts of a mathematician occasioned by the reading of Euclid. In Beppo Levi, Euclid's Elements appear to be the fruit of the conceptions of the circle of mathematicians and philosophers who surrounded Socrates rather than the work of an Alexandrian from 300 BC. The confusion that once existed between Euclid and Euclid of Megara, not feared by Beppo Levi, has given rise to more than one criticism of his book, which nevertheless remains highly interesting.
>>25024135I don't know man. Gödel was first and foremost a logician. Couldn't formalize his way out of starvation though.
Let us gather around the ἄβαξ and make sense of things here in ἡ Ἀκαδημία
>>25023685Logic is older than math retard
STEM is a waste of time.
>>25024315The basic structures of mathematics such as numbers, geometry, and ratio seem to appear in the natural world independently of human beings. Take this example. The Fibonacci sequence appears in the branching of trees, the arrangement of leaves, and the pattern of sunflower seeds. These patterns predate human discovery and are ingrained in the very structure of biological systems and the Universe itself. I would even dare to say that the Universe is a mathematical construct itself.
>>25023204
>>25024315Math is the olderst thing in the universe lil bro, Math is older than your "god" even
>>25023685No real stemfag would ever say this, let alone ask for recommendations here when there's /sci/ and they have an entire wiki of exactly what you're looking for.
Book of proof is free and an easy read, even for non-math types.https://richardhammack.github.io/BookOfProof/https://jdhsmith.math.iastate.edu/class/BookOfProof.pdf
>>25024427>Math is older than your "god" evensmartest mathfag
Ultra pseud thread. Chemistry is at the cutting edge of development and progress, no field right now has a higher useful iq ceiling.
>>25024566Chemistry? Like what for example.
This one if you are into number theory.
